Socialism

[Virus278]

Socialism - property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community

Communism - a socioeconomic structure based on common ownership of the means of production.

OK, I'm trying not to be stupid here but I can never really pinpoint the exact difference between these two ideologies. Can anyone help me out here?

- I've recently been reading a lot about different political ideologies and the pros/cons of capitalism so I'm hopping/planning that this sparks a discussion.


EDIT: I'm also interested in you guys' opinion on capitalism. Do you think its outdated and exploitative or just plain foolish to try and reject it?

[Seafroggys]

Communism generally tends to be autocratic, while socialist states generally tend to be democratic.

[MAthiAS]

Socialism is the lowest stage of communism.

[Virus278]

Socialism is the lowest stage of communism.

what do you mean by "lowest". Do you mean that you think it is the worst form of communism?

[The Stig]

It has less restriction on personal and economic liberty than actual Communism.

[Virus278]

It has less restriction on personal and economic liberty than actual Communism.

Communism generally tends to be autocratic, while socialist states generally tend to be democratic.

So the main difference between the two is governmental control?

[The Stig]

Well level of government control. Most socialist states are still very oppressive in the amount the government interferes, but Communism in forms that have been seen is essentially total government control (until it starts to fall apart)

[Virus278]

Well level of government control. Most socialist states are still very oppressive in the amount the government interferes, but Communism in forms that have been seen is essentially total government control (until it starts to fall apart)

see, that's what I used to think but then someone told me that there can be non-authoritarian communist regimes. I was told to think of Cuba. Cuba's not an authoritarian state is it?

[Reaganista]

those words have such different meanings in diferent settings they're effectively meaningless divorced from context

[gregulus]

the ultimate goal of communism is a classless, stateless society in which property is collectively owned and with it the means of production. the transition stage between a capitalist and a communist societies would be controlled by a dictatorship of the proletariat.

socialism is a VERY broad term that encompasses a variety ideas. generally, what is meant by "socialism" (by my understanding) is the distribution of wealth by the community. this can be achieved in a variety of ways.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

see, that's what I used to think but then someone told me that there can be non-authoritarian communist regimes. I was told to think of Cuba. Cuba's not an authoritarian state is it?

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2003/03/58128

Answer your question?

[pedro durruti]

Communism is a political ideology, but the mode of government varies yet is generally aimed at being egalitarian. Communism is a specific sort of socialism that's rooted largely in Marxist philosophy, and then there are offshoot hybrids like the Soviets.

[Virus278]

So, in socialism, how exactly is the wealth distributed? Does everyone get an equal amount (I'd assume that would be the case since, in socialism, wealth isn't be distributed according to the work that people do)?

[gregulus]

So, in socialism, how exactly is the wealth distributed? Does everyone get an equal amount (I'd assume that would be the case since, in socialism, wealth isn't be distributed according to the work that people do)?
it various. it's a broad term.

[Independent_CA]

In general terms, socialism allows far more private ownership as well as some of the things others have said. It's more aimed at eliminating extreme poverty.

Communism on the other hand is less friendly towards private ownership, more authoritarian, and is primarily concerned with eliminating class divisions.

Thats more or less how I think of them anyway.

[Virus278]

In general terms, socialism allows far more private ownership as well as some of the things others have said. It's more aimed at eliminating extreme poverty.

Communism on the other hand is less friendly towards private ownership, more authoritarian, and is primarily concerned with eliminating class divisions.

Thats more or less how I think of them anyway.

Oh, I see...I've actually heard people say before that socialism is somewhat of a mix between capitalism and communism.



OK, so here's the thing:

because I (obviously) haven't ever experienced anything other than a capitalistic society, I can't imagine how a socialistic society would work. What I mean is that I can't think of how everyday life would be affected. Take education for an example: the primary goal of (at least upper-division) education in a socialistic state would, unlike capitalism, not be job preparation - how would that affect the education system?

[pedro durruti]

Socialism would change nearly every facet of social life. The economic structure of society has a lot of influence over all the other interactions and things in social life, because the economy is so important.

[Smokey D]

According to Engels, socialism is the period when the government comes under the control of the proletariat or people friendly to its interests and 'the internal contradictions of capitalism' are destroyed in favour of a classless society that would eventually become communism, a socieoeconomic system devoid of any sort of class.

But more importantly, socialism and communism are both incredibly broad terms, and, as Reaganista says, they aren't particularly meaningful without context.

OK, so here's the thing:

because I (obviously) haven't ever experienced anything other than a capitalistic society, I can't imagine how a socialistic society would work. What I mean is that I can't think of how everyday life would be affected. Take education for an example: the primary goal of (at least upper-division) education in a socialistic state would, unlike capitalism, not be job preparation - how would that affect the education system?

Unless you live in Singapore or Dubai or somewhere, most economies you would have experienced are somewhere in the 'between capitalism and communism' thing, though this is probably an insufficient definition for socialism.

The common understanding of socialism (public healthcare, widespread welfare state, government presence in private interests etc) are all probably part of socialism, but they don't go far enough to describe it.

[Iskandar]

Socialism can be thought of as in between capitalism and communism in that it's not as far to the left as communism.
It has less restriction on personal and economic liberty than actual Communism.Wrong.

[Smokey D]

I was told to think of Cuba. Cuba's not an authoritarian state is it?

Yar it is.

[Iskandar]

Cuba is a Communist state, but that doesn't necessarily make it a shining example of socialism in practice.

In fact, most socialists would agree that Marxist-Leninist communism doesn't deserve a place in the socialist tradition, due to its crimes and excesses.

[1338 h4x0r]

I more or less believe in social democracy, which is not what I would call 'communism' (as an American). In fact, I prefer the term 'social democracy' because it is largely unambiguous compared to all the other umbrella terms you might use.

[Dave de Sylvia]

They're both ambiguous terms that everybody has their own personal definitions of.

[1338 h4x0r]

They're both ambiguous terms that everybody has their own personal definitions of.

I think you'll agree that when I say 'social democracy', few if any people will conflate the term with Stalinist or Maoist approaches to socialism. When someone says social democracy, the first things I think of are slightly bland but non-threatening Bauhaus architecture and a spacious city park in Oslo.

[Virus278]

I think you'll agree that when I say 'social democracy', few if any people will conflate the term with Stalinist or Maoist approaches to socialism. When someone says social democracy, the first things I think of are slightly bland but non-threatening Bauhaus architecture and a spacious city park in Oslo.

I thought Norway was capitalist.

[Smokey D]

Norway probably more than most places is closer to social democracy. It has a mixed economy (most countries do, but Norway's is particularly well-mixed) with private and government agencies playing a significant role.

[Virus278]

Is it like that in all Nordic countries or just Norway?

[Smokey D]

All Nordic countries are more left-wing than most places, but I think Norway is probably the most left-wing of them all. Part of this stems from the fact that Norway has substantial oil resources to pay for things.

[Virus278]

can you elaborate on that? I'm interested.

[Smokey D]

Elaborate on the oil?

[Virus278]

haha I mean how come Norway's substantial oil resources make them more left wing than other Nordic countries?

[Smokey D]

It enables the government to provide more services while taxing people less. But Norway still taxes people a lot.

[Virus278]

you mean their government provides services that are "free" for the people (like free healthcare)? Is that what makes them quasi-socialist?

[Smokey D]

Pretty much.

[Virus278]

So how do you feel about capitalism?

[Smokey D]

Capitalism is pretty neat for the most part, being responsible for a massive increase in standard of living for most people living within its borders. But like all systems, it is one with winners and losers, and there is definitely a role for the government to mitigate its excesses.

[Virus278]

So are you happy with living in a capitalist society or do you wish you lived in a non-capitalist state?

[1338 h4x0r]

Capitalism is pretty neat for the most part, being responsible for a massive increase in standard of living for most people living within its borders. But like all systems, it is one with winners and losers, and there is definitely a role for the government to mitigate its excesses.

If you think about it, social democracy can help ensure that capitalism retains its advantages, as a level playing field and consumer-oriented legislation stimulate competition.

Wouldn't want a single trust selling you **** sandwiches of course.

[Smokey D]

I'm happy with capitalism, for the most part.

[Virus278]

I'm happy with capitalism, for the most part.

I guess I'm kind of the same way. I mean, capitalism is sometimes abused but that can be the case with any political system.

[Iskandar]

I consider social democracy superior to purist capitalism, and the way forward for a developed nation.

[monkeysonmars.]

who actually advocates pure capitalism?

[Iskandar]

who actually advocates pure capitalism?The right wing?

[monkeysonmars.]

more specifically? i read an essay about freedom and capitalism that talked about the stupidity in claiming that capitalism (pure) is the most free basis for life, but all i thought was that this was pretty obvious stuff and that nobody actually thought private property was institution of maximum freedom??

[Smokey D]

The right wing?

Maybe like 6 or 7 of them.

[Iskandar]

Maybe like 6 or 7 of them.They want to move in that direction i.e. backwards.

But actually the drive for "pure" capitalism comes from a small group of economists with disproportionate influence, like the Austrian School.
i read an essay about freedom and capitalism that talked about the stupidity in claiming that capitalism (pure) is the most free basis for life, but all i thought was that this was pretty obvious stuff and that nobody actually thought private property was institution of maximum freedom??Only a minority faction of right-wingers actually believe this wholeheartedly, but their ideas have influenced the right wing to a disquieting extent.

[Smokey D]

I think Austrian school economics is a thought provoking and extremely useful theory to have. Same with Chicago school. I don't think you should discount them simply because they oppose your deeply held convictions. At least examine the reasons why they do.

Not that I necessarily support a wholehearted implementation of an Austrian-school system.

I should also point out the Austrian school isn't particularly influential. Otherwise Ron Paul would get the nomination.

[Iskandar]

I should also point out the Austrian school isn't particularly influential. Otherwise Ron Paul would get the nomination.Their ideas are behind the rise of neo-liberalism and the right's hostile opposition to the modern welfare state.

[Smokey D]

Neo-liberalism is pretty awesome.

You're starting off at the position 'welfare states are awesome' and then discounting anything that criticises the welfare state, and that's not very sound logical practice. Not to mention a) not all neo-liberals are hostile to the welfare state (ie the Third Way) and b) Austrian and Chicago school has a far wider ambit than just the welfare state.

[Iskandar]

Neo-liberalism is pretty awesome.

You're starting off at the position 'welfare states are awesome' and then discounting anything that criticises the welfare state, and that's not very sound logical practice. Not to mention a) not all neo-liberals are hostile to the welfare state (ie the Third Way) and b) Austrian and Chicago school has a far wider ambit than just the welfare state.You right-winger you.

I swear we're not thinking of the same thing when we see the term "neo-liberalism." I equate it with really right-wing guys like Friedman and Hayek and stuff. Your idea of neoliberalism is more like a Third Way Tony Blair kind of thing.

[-1up!-]

more specifically? i read an essay about freedom and capitalism that talked about the stupidity in claiming that capitalism (pure) is the most free basis for life, but all i thought was that this was pretty obvious stuff and that nobody actually thought private property was institution of maximum freedom??

Yeah like Smokey said, the Austrian school produced some pretty vocal advocates of anarcho-capitalism. That means: no state, just a big capitalist jungle. Ludvig von Mises, Murray Rothbard and Friedrich Hayek were among them.

The only libertarian I've read from is Robert Nozick. While he's not advocating the complete abolition of the state, he's a solid representant of libertarian thought. I've tried readng some Rothbard but it was all economic concepts and **** so I gave up after like 30 seconds.

[Smokey D]

I don't necessarily support Austrian or Chicago school, but they didn't get to be influential by being wrong about everything.

You must consider their arguments on their own merits, not for their consequences for whatever sacred cow you have.

Rothbard's criticism of Nozick is quite interesting, and it's not too difficult to read.

Also, that was Alex not me. I don't support Austrian school stuff, but it has an important place in economic discourse.

[Iskandar]

Nozick is a minarchist, pretty much. Libertarian verging on anarcho-capitalist but not quite there. Most libertarians aren't quite so radical.
I don't necessarily support Austrian or Chicago school, but they didn't get to be influential by being wrong about everything.They caught the ear of right-wing politicians at a time when the right was in the ascendancy and socialism seemed thoroughly discredited.

But that's just my opinion.

[Smokey D]

They also have a very cohesive and well thought out and well supported empirical basis. They don't just make things up.

[Iskandar]

Yeah, they did. Doesn't make their ideas the right ones to pursue.

[-1up!-]

Nozick is a minarchist, pretty much. Libertarian verging on anarcho-capitalist but not quite there. Most libertarians aren't quite so radical.
They caught the ear of right-wing politicians at a time when the right was in the ascendancy and socialism seemed thoroughly discredited.

But that's just my opinion.

Yeah Nozick is interesting. While I'm not really libertarian economic-wise, having to work on his writings last semester has affected my political stance.

[monkeysonmars.]

Yeah like Smokey said, the Austrian school produced some pretty vocal advocates of anarcho-capitalism. That means: no state, just a big capitalist jungle. Ludvig von Mises, Murray Rothbard and Friedrich Hayek were among them.

The only libertarian I've read from is Robert Nozick. While he's not advocating the complete abolition of the state, he's a solid representant of libertarian thought. I've tried readng some Rothbard but it was all economic concepts and **** so I gave up after like 30 seconds.

yeah anarcho-capitalism is pretty interesting stuff, this essay was more about capitalism within the state context.

[Smokey D]

Well, I'm not saying that it is. I'm saying that you should pay attention to them because lots of their predictions are right and maybe some of their ideas aren't so bad after all.

[Iskandar]

Anarcho-capitalism is nutty, minarchism slightly less so.
I'm saying that you should pay attention to them because lots of their predictions are right and maybe some of their ideas aren't so bad after all.Eh? Like what?

[Smokey D]

Did you ever read Nozick, Alex?


I'm saying that you should pay attention to them because lots of their predictions are right and maybe some of their ideas aren't so bad after all.

Like monetarism.

[-1up!-]

I found Nozick's argument against taxation pretty compelling. He placed taxation on par with forced labour which is somewhat... radical, but defended it pretty well. Of course, being a deontologist, the consequences of his argument pose no problem to him, thought the majority of us would have a qualm with it.

Let's say Smokey and I decide to trade stuff. He has a spoon which I desire and he could let go. I have a beautiful fork he would want, too. With full consent, we exchange our goods. How can any third party claim a part of that exchange as a necessity of justice? Nozick argues that taxation is just like that. Two parties freely exchanging goods, and a third party (the state) coming out of nowhere to claim a part of the exchange.

Make what you want of this argument, but it's easily countered.

[Smokey D]

That's why Nozick is so interesting. His ideas and his phrasing has such visceral appeal, but they aren't founded on a wholly satisfying academic structure, which makes him easy prey for his opposition. But even so it's difficult to shake off the nagging persuasiveness of some of his ideas (the eye lottery being a good example, as is the one above).

[Iskandar]

Did you ever read Nozick, Alex?Yeah, last year.
Like monetarism.Regulating the money supply is important, but don't hardcore monetarists want it to be the only role government has to play?

[Super Nintendo]

capitalism is the most stable system to this date, plus the individual can succeed on his own without the need of the government. in comunism, it doesnt matter how hard you work or how good you are at it, you still get the same as an unemployed and the goverment gets all the money. i say that because i live in a rich country with poor people and rich government. if we all lived in democratic countrys with a capitalist system... everything would be much better... and i know it because i have lived(?) here with a democratic and capitalist system and with this pseudo socialist system that is in fact more close to comunism... socialism and comunism hold people back and doesnt let them succeed

[McP3000]

capitalism is the most stable system to this date, plus the individual can succeed on his own without the need of the government. in comunism, it doesnt matter how hard you work or how good you are at it, you still get the same as an unemployed and the goverment gets all the money. i say that because i live in a rich country with poor people and rich government. if we all lived in democratic countrys with a capitalist system... everything would be much better... and i know it because i have lived(?) here with a democratic and capitalist system and with this pseudo socialist system that is in fact more close to comunism... socialism and comunism hold people back and doesnt let them succeed
Prepare for flaming

thou hast been warned

[monkeysonmars.]

i think if we just pretend that post wasn't made it will shave off a couple of pages from this thread

[-1up!-]

...Yeah. I was about to reply something to that, but is it even worth it? I severely doubt he's lived in a regime anything close to communism.

[Super Nintendo]

i live in venezuela dammit

[1338 h4x0r]

i live in venezuela dammit

Hugo Chavez can't get elected again.

[-1up!-]

i live in venezuela dammit

Okay but you still have no understanding at all of communism and Venezuela isn't a communist regime.

It's pretty easy to say capitalism is the most stable system up to date when it's the only one you've really experienced.

[Super Nintendo]

Hugo Chavez can't get elected again.

actually since he lost the referendum he said he want to make an ammend to the constitution so he can be reelected for an unlimited amount of time.

Okay but you still have no understanding at all of communism and Venezuela isn't a communist regime.

It's pretty easy to say capitalism is the most stable system up to date when it's the only one you've really experienced.

okay maybe i dont understand what comunism is, i'll read stuff about it, i'ts always good to learn something =)

well here we have a socialist regime in way to comunism as our president said numerous times, that he wants to make the country like cuba, he says that capitalism is from the devil and stuff like that. but belive me, the govermente here has control of almos everything, and is trying to reduce the private property constantly.
in fact you can't exchange our currency for another legally unless you travel and then you can only get 600$ cash and 5000$ on your credit card. then if you speak about the black market dollar you have to pay ridiculous ammount of money that almost no one can pay, thats because the controled dollar is 2150Bs per dollar... in the black market it's 6000 per dollar.
and when he came it was only 500 per dolar.
if you can resume a brief concept of comunism ill thank you.

yeah well you live in a capitalist country too hehehe =p

[Virus278]

It's pretty easy to say capitalism is the most stable system up to date when it's the only one you've really experienced.

I personally (along with many other people) couldn't see anything besides capitalism working but (unlike other people) I realize it's because I've never experience anything else...and that's the whole reason I created this thread. I mean, I want to be able to better understand socialism and communist (because I know capitalism has huge faults) but I can't even begin to imagine living in a socialist or communist state. Can you guys enlighten me? How would communism and socialism work in a best case scenario?



Oh ya, one more thing - this morning while I was getting ready for school I had the TV on. I had it switched to a news report that was recapping some of the primary speeches (or whatever they're called (sorry, I don't really follow this stuff)) that were held yesterday. Anyway, since I was only half paying attention I missed a lot of stuff but I did hear a news reporter say something about how some of what McCain (I think it was McCain) said could be viewed as almost anti-capitalist - do you guys know what he was talking about?

i read an essay about freedom and capitalism that talked about the stupidity in claiming that capitalism (pure) is the most free basis for life, but all i thought was that this was pretty obvious stuff and that nobody actually thought private property was institution of maximum freedom??

Can you post a link to the essay (on the off chance that you remember where you read it)?

[Iskandar]

Oh ya, one more thing - this morning while I was getting ready for school I had the TV on. I had it switched to a news report that was recapping some of the primary speeches (or whatever they're called (sorry, I don't really follow this stuff)) that were held yesterday. Anyway, since I was only half paying attention I missed a lot of stuff but I did hear a news reporter say something about how some of what McCain (I think it was McCain) said could be viewed as almost anti-capitalist - do you guys know what he was talking about?If it was McCain, that's retarded because McCain is in no way anti-capitalist. None of the candidates are.

Knowing America, he probably made a passing reference to progressive income taxes and the conservative pundits pounced all over each other to declare him a Communist.

[monkeysonmars.]

Can you post a link to the essay (on the off chance that you remember where you read it)?

sorry it's from a book of a collection of essays on liberty, i could summarise it if you were really interested but it's nothing ground breaking

I personally (along with many other people) couldn't see anything besides capitalism working but (unlike other people) I realize it's because I've never experience anything else...
this is covered in passing in the essay

[Virus278]

this is covered in passing in the essay

Do you mean that the concept of people not being able to imagine life without capitalism is covered or do you mean that the essay tries to rectify that problem.

[monkeysonmars.]

the idea that people imagine institutions around their current life as almost a development of human nature so they tend to see restrictions on private property (progressive taxation or whatever) as obstacle to freedom but don't see the lack of freedom in someone being stopped from pitching a tent in someone else's garden.

[Virus278]

the idea that people imagine institutions around their current life as almost a development of human nature so they tend to see restrictions on private property (progressive taxation or whatever) as obstacle to freedom but don't see the lack of freedom in someone being stopped from pitching a tent in someone else's garden.

ya, I see what you mean.

What you said reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask for a while: If there is no private property in socialism/communism then how is it decided who lives where?

[monkeysonmars.]

my reading of marx is pretty limited but as i remember marx doesn't actually talk all that much about how a communist community would run in detail. although this question is only an issue when you think about it from our capitalist perspective. everyone would have a home as we do now but there would be no competition for houses, no rough neighborhoods so you'd take a house as it came available as long as you were the most deserving of it (big houses for large families or whatever).

[Smokey D]

Okay but you still have no understanding at all of communism and Venezuela isn't a communist regime.

It's pretty easy to say capitalism is the most stable system up to date when it's the only one you've really experienced.

Historically, the most stable society is an agricultural one.

But we can ignore that, since it was not his point. Capitalism has proven itself to be more successful than any form of communism attempted. This cannot be denied.

[Virus278]

my reading of marx is pretty limited but as i remember marx doesn't actually talk all that much about how a communist community would run in detail. although this question is only an issue when you think about it from our capitalist perspective. everyone would have a home as we do now but there would be no competition for houses, no rough neighborhoods so you'd take a house as it came available as long as you were the most deserving of it (big houses for large families or whatever).

Would it be the same in socialism?

[Smokey D]

I don't know if Marx did it, but later communists distinguished between private property (capital goods, or the means of production, held in the hands of a few who used their unique ownership of capital to oppress the working class. These had to be vested in common ownership to avoid the excesses of capitalism) and personal property (consumer goods, houses, cars etc that everybody can own and have a distinct and exclusive legal right to).

[1338 h4x0r]

actually since he lost the referendum he said he want to make an ammend to the constitution so he can be reelected for an unlimited amount of time.


Did that measure fail, too?

[monkeysonmars.]

as people have already said 'socialism' as a term means almost nothing. it can be used anywhere from far-left beliefs interchangeable with marxism/ communism (in which case it would be the same) to centre-left politics like market socialism (in which case it would be more like our society). it would probably help your understanding if you just forgot about socialism as a term that can be defined.

EDIT: marx did distinguish between personal property and capital dunno what he thought about acquiring it though

[Virus278]

I know that in a social democracy the government takes a large percentage of everyone's paycheck and people get to do whatever they want with the remaining money. At first, I didn't see how this would discourage someone from trying to get as much profit as possible but then I heard about something called the 110% rule - a rule that states if you make more than one million dollars in a year than you will have to pay the government 110% of that. I was told that this rule used to be in existence in Denmark. Is this true? And what currently discourages profit seeking in Scandinavia (or any social democracy for that matter)?

[Smokey D]

Hahaha, no. That doesn't happen.

And even if it did, it wouldn't be intrinsic to social democracy.

[Virus278]

Hahaha, no. That doesn't happen.

And even if it did, it wouldn't be intrinsic to social democracy.

Oh, haha.

So what, if anything, discourages profit seeking in a social democracy?

[monkeysonmars.]

nothing does, that's the point of progressive taxation.

[Knifeboy]

then I heard about something called the 110% rule - a rule that states if you make more than one million dollars in a year than you will have to pay the government 110% of that. I was told that this rule used to be in existence in Denmark. Is this true?

Hahaha.. That's hilarious, where did you hear about that?

Nah, the highest tax bracket here in Denmark is 68% of your income.
And it's not put in place to discourage profit seeking.
Profit seeking isn't seen as a bad thing. They don't want to discourage profit seeking here, I don't think society could work properly without it

[Iskandar]

Oh, haha.

So what, if anything, discourages profit seeking in a social democracy?Some right-wingers might say progressive taxation and social programs do. I disagree.

[Danish]

Nothing. They encourage profit-seeking as well, but through different public policy mechanisms. In fact, Danish economic figures are amongst the most competitive in the rich world.

[Smokey D]

It does discourage profit seeking in that you don't want to move between tax brackets unless you're earning considerably more at the next level up (otherwise any additional money you earn, and any work you put in to earn it, goes to the government). But there might be other ways of encouraging profits, I dunno.

[Virus278]

Hahaha.. That's hilarious, where did you hear about that?

Well, there’s this guy who knows A LOT about politics who I’ve been talking with (off and on) about political affairs for almost a year. He’s quite a bit older than I am and he’s been studying politics for years and years. I guess he knows that if I ask him a question and he doesn’t know the answer to it, he can just BS it and still sound smart…wanker

Nah, the highest tax bracket here in Denmark is 68% of your income.
And it's not put in place to discourage profit seeking.
Profit seeking isn't seen as a bad thing. They don't want to discourage profit seeking here, I don't think society could work properly without it

I agree but what about an extreme case where a bottled water company pollutes the water supply to a point where it’s undrinkable in order to make people will be more bottled water. Or the more likely case where a Christmas tree light company purposely makes their lights only last one year so people will keep buying from them every year.

[Smokey D]

There's nothing wrong with the second one. Companies do that all the time, and while it's not very nice for the consumer, it keeps them in business and people employed. Lighting companies are notorious for delaying the release of long-term or limitless use light bulbs because of the damage it'd do to their business.

But there are laws against poisoning the water supply that you don't need to be a social democrat to enforce.

[Virus278]

There's nothing wrong with the second one. Companies do that all the time, and while it's not very nice for the consumer, it keeps them in business and people employed.


But I thought that was a major problem with capitalism - exploitation

Recently I was "rock climbing" on cliffs at San Francisco's Baker Beach. At one point when I was close to the ground I got a bit careless, slipped and hit my head on a rock. Nothing too serious, except a crescent-shaped wound where the rim of my metal-framed glasses tried to make contact with the bone of my eye socket, and a bit of a black eye. I also broke one lens of my glasses, and then lost the rest, which gets to the point of this.

I went to LensCrafters, where I'd bought the previous pair, and they had my prescription. They would sell me plastic lenses for I think about $50, but I like phototropic (gets dark in the sunlight), therefore glass lenses. They don't do these "in about an hour", more like two weeks. When I was almost out the door, I found they could make me a pair of "loaner" plastic glasses, which I would later exchange. They said they return the lenses to the manufacturer (whom I hope gives them to organizations that furnish glasses for third world countries) and get a rebate.

The point is that they can afford to make plastic lenses "for free", or rather as a convenience to a paying customer, for which they would normally charge $50. (If I'd still had the other lens, would they have made just one lens? I'm pretty sure they'd have found an excuse not to.)


Lighting companies are notorious for delaying the release of long-term or limitless use light bulbs because of the damage it'd do to their business.

Isn't that just hindering society from moving forward though (another major problem of capitalism)?

[TheDMV]

Isn't that just hindering society from moving forward though (another major problem of capitalism)?


In a way, yes. If the lighting companies were to go out of business because they have no one to buy bulbs then more people would lose jobs, which is bad. The amount of money actually spent buying a new light bulb every however long it may be probably isn't that significant, even to lower income families. My biggest problem with it is that it's a waste of resources.

[Smokey D]

But I thought that was a major problem with capitalism - exploitation

The exploitative nature of capitalism is highly debated. The example you posed about the guy with glasses is not an example of any sort of exploitation, though. The 'loan pair' are not free, they are covered by the cost of the pair he actually buys. Also, they are returned to the manufacturer, and are probably reused.


Isn't that just hindering society from moving forward though (another major problem of capitalism)?

Possibly, although the incentive to produce new products is higher under a system which rewards personal ingenuity. Capitalism certainly does reward inventors (arguably, various forms of communism do too, as scientists were treated very lavishly in the USSR).

[Virus278]

The example you posed about the guy with glasses is not an example of any sort of exploitation, though. The 'loan pair' are not free, they are covered by the cost of the pair he actually buys. Also, they are returned to the manufacturer, and are probably reused.

Ya, I noticed the story fell short of backing up my point...I shouldn't have posted it. I couldn't find offhandedly another prime example of how profit seeking screwed the consumer.

Possibly, although the incentive to produce new products is higher under a system which rewards personal ingenuity. Capitalism certainly does reward inventors (arguably, various forms of communism do too, as scientists were treated very lavishly in the USSR)

How does personal ingenuity get treated in a social democracy?

The exploitative nature of capitalism is highly debated.

Really? I thought this fact was excepted by most people.

[Danish]

It does discourage profit seeking in that you don't want to move between tax brackets unless you're earning considerably more at the next level up (otherwise any additional money you earn, and any work you put in to earn it, goes to the government). But there might be other ways of encouraging profits, I dunno.

Corporations are the predominant form of private-sector business in Denmark as well, and they are legally structured to pursue profit above all else.

[Iskandar]

How does personal ingenuity get treated in a social democracy?Rewarded, naturally.

Personal ingenuity does not seem to have suffered at all in modern social democracies, like those in Europe.

[Knifeboy]

I agree but what about an extreme case where a bottled water company pollutes the water supply to a point where it’s undrinkable in order to make people will be more bottled water. Or the more likely case where a Christmas tree light company purposely makes their lights only last one year so people will keep buying from them every year.

Well, there's a lot of government intervention when it comes to corporations, most of it put in place to protect consumers rights.
The first example is obviously illegal, I'm not sure what would happen in the second example, because I haven't encountered anything like it, and if I do, there's plenty of laws put into place that'd help me get my money back

[Smokey D]

How does personal ingenuity get treated in a social democracy?


Probably the same as it's treated elsewhere; social democracy isn't too different from standard welfare states.


Really? I thought this fact was excepted by most people.

It depends hugely on what you consider exploitative. Marxists believe in a surplus labour theory of value, arguing that all commodities derive their value from the amount of labour it takes to create them. This means that when a good is sold at a price above the cost of production (ie, at a profit) then the worker is losing out on potential benefit, and that this is therefore exploitative. Non-Marxists argue that the labour theory of value is wrong and doesn't describe what happens in profit creation, so the relationship isn't exploitative.

Historically, capitalists have been exploitative, but I don't think it's automatic. There are plenty of ways to avoid exploitation, provided we don't buy into the Marxists model.

[the_green_bastard]

Socialism - property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community

Communism - a socioeconomic structure based on common ownership of the means of production.

OK, I'm trying not to be stupid here but I can never really pinpoint the exact difference between these two ideologies. Can anyone help me out here?

- I've recently been reading a lot about different political ideologies and the pros/cons of capitalism so I'm hopping/planning that this sparks a discussion.


EDIT: I'm also interested in you guys' opinion on capitalism. Do you think its outdated and exploitative or just plain foolish to try and reject it?

Well, communism and socialism have been treated and explained in many vastly different ways by their various proponents. I myself have always joked about socialism as a form of "pseudo-communism," before my subsequent disillusionment with both. Communists like Marx and his proponents advocated a "dictatorship of the proletariat;" a sort of "temporary dictatorship." This, I need not say, is a VERY dubious concept, and leads one to question the motives of the proponents of such a concept. Furthermore, as we've seen time and time again throughout history, once a power and centralized control system is established, it CAN and WILL be abused. People like to go on about Hitler, but Stalin was a far greater butcher; a man becoming the leading cause of death in a nation - Stalin directly killed one in twenty Russians. Maoist China had a similarly disgusting man at the helm, which caused, like Hitler and Stalin, the proliferation of massive extralegal police forces, mass arrests and executions, slave-labour gulags, and, more recently, the harvesting of organs from political dissidents. Communism has served and will serve, just as any type of centralized power system, to fleece the masses and create brutal dictatorships, and with this "sacrifice of the individual toward the collective," one comes upon a convenient justification for just about any atrocity one would name, be it social control, eugenics, mass propaganda (soiling the minds of the masses; I'll leave that partially to reason and cite the massive and tragic sexual ignorance and repression of the Mao generation, which was complete with its own "Youth Cult" just like the Hitler Youth), imprisoning and scapegoating the poor and under-classes, massive over-taxation, etc.. Theists love to point at "secular" dictatorships, but in reality, Stalin, and so did Mao, inherited systems and governments in which MASSIVE histories had revolved around an all-powerful demi-god leader; on that ground, I will not call them secular, as their opposition to religion was based on the grounds that the body politic were to have NO gods but them, not upon their status as "enlightened atheists." But this is all besides the point.

Socialism, really, is a medium between the extremist totalitarian situation of a communist society, and maintaining the leanings of state social and economical control, by means of nationalization of industry. I've often said that the only difference between the cops and the mob is the legitimacy which we grant them, and following on as such, the government in centralizing industry as such, becomes no different in practice than a corporation with a monopoly. Socialism, really, is not a "breed of" or a "choice from" communism; it's communism-in-progress. I feel quite cloudy on the issue and welcome exogenous input, as I could once nail these definitions with more impunity.

That said, I'll not label myself as any fan or proponent of capitalism either (ironically enough, I'm a business student, and quite unsure of myself because of that). I would say that it is expoloitative. One only needs to look back towards the evolution of the Industrial "Revolution." Wage labour was once young, and the workers were unfamiliar and unhappy with it. It separates the worker from the production itself; one flips countless burgers never to have one for himself, as that would constitute theft from his slave-ma*cough*cough* boss. It's always occurred to me (and the structure of the corporation itself being a major part of this; the corporation as a legal "person" and having the same rights thereof), that it seemed odd; unjust, almost, that one could raise a great fortune simply by manipulating money; in not ACTUALLY performing any task or labour towards some creative or beneficial end for self and community. One may be a proprietor, collecting the fruits of his workers' labour and redistributing a certain percentage of it back to them based on their contributed hours. One needs not analyze far to realize that this system encourages the adoption of the lowest wage which the people will accept. Furthermore, the argument is often raised that all here is just in that one complies and freely chooses to partake in this labour, but surely a choice between options limited by coerced circumstances hardly constitutes an air of democracy; which leads me to my next point: we pride ourselves as living in and having created a democracy, yet the corporation is a dictatorship, and our livelihood depends on the dollar, and our dollars on the corporation. Put simply, I believe capitalism then, by extention, to be an outright INFRINGEMENT upon democracy, rather than a vehicle thereof.

To make an argument FOR capitalism in saying that it's "foolish to resist it" is really a red herring. To be surrounded and overwhelmed by a phenomena and deciding therefore upon its inevitability is really a cop-out. I don't have the answers, nor do I claim to, but surely we can do better than these two heads of the same hydra; communism and capitalism.

[the_green_bastard]

Tomorrow I'll attempt a more thorough and sensible critique of capitalism; it's 2:23 AM and my mind is beginning to shut down.

[monkeysonmars.]

i like the seamless link between marx and totalitarian regimes.

[Danish]

It depends hugely on what you consider exploitative. Marxists believe in a surplus labour theory of value, arguing that all commodities derive their value from the amount of labour it takes to create them. This means that when a good is sold at a price above the cost of production (ie, at a profit) then the worker is losing out on potential benefit, and that this is therefore exploitative. Non-Marxists argue that the labour theory of value is wrong and doesn't describe what happens in profit creation, so the relationship isn't exploitative.

Historically, capitalists have been exploitative, but I don't think it's automatic. There are plenty of ways to avoid exploitation, provided we don't buy into the Marxists model.

I would further argue that every worker has the right to the full value of their labour.

Surplus theory of labour value is the basis for exploitation in a capitalist mode of production, but it doesn't end there.


edit: and you all know that Marx wrote very, very little about "communism"; Marxism is a massive institutional analysis of the capitalist mode of production.

[the_green_bastard]

i like the seamless link between marx and totalitarian regimes.

Clearly you're not familiar with Karl Marx, if you don't know about the "dictatorship of the proletariat."

And given the compatability of this ideology with the establishment of totalitarian regimes, an advocate of Marxism is a red flag indicating a Leninist or a Stalinist. Not always, obviously, but usually.

Everyone seems perfectly alright with dictatorship, if only it were them at the helm. Well, Marx's arguments have some fatal flaws, namely that "a different form of dictatorship" would improve the status quo, when social control IN AND OF ITSELF is the source of the woes he attributes to the bourgeoisie. I agree we have a "managerial class" now, and nations of peasants in the East which work for the West. Well, it's intervention by the various governments in question which ENABLE this phenomena, and historically, communist dictatorships have turned around and simply taken it to another level, twisting Marxism around towards a "subversion of individual to collective." Reminds me of a Borg Cube. The vehicle? Not coerced circumstances and industry and wage labour, deplorable as that may be, but through OUTRIGHT LITERAL slave camps and mass dictatorship. It's a vehicle to power, that's all. Hitler would have said anything to get into power, and so did Stalin and Mao. Fascism is fascism, even if you paint it red.

[the_green_bastard]

I would further argue that every worker has the right to the full value of their labour.

Surplus theory of labour value is the basis for exploitation in a capitalist mode of production, but it doesn't end there.


edit: and you all know that Marx wrote very, very little about "communism"; Marxism is a massive institutional analysis of the capitalist mode of production.

Well-put.

Marx recognized that something was wrong, but in the end, he was misdirected, and his name and ideology hijacked by fascists wrapped in a Hammer and Sickle flag, and attacked and scapegoated by those who favour a more psychologically-orieted, subtle form of exploitation, ie. capitalism.

Stalinism and Maoism, disgusting as they may be, I must sympathise, even agree, with aspects of a Leninist standpoint that the state ITSELF is the great enemy of freedom. Lenin, however, didn't strictly follow this ideology, and employed some truly deplorable actions to obtain power with Trostky and the Red Army. He was then murdered in his twilight years, when he had grown sick, emotional, and seemingly regretfully philosophical, along with LITERALLY THE REST OF THE KREMLIN by Stalin in his psychotic, paranoid, psychopathic rush to power. Basically, the Communists tried to push it TOO FAST. Lenin was an intellectual elitist, and felt he could subvert the system and lead the people like cattle along the way.

That's why it makes me sick to see 14-year-olds running around in CCCP and Maoist t-shirts, thinking they're "cool" and "anti-establishment." I was once one of them; now I know better. Now I know that the CIA backed the Maoist Revolution, believing he would have a "stabilizing effect," and thus began the great UN-backed social experiment of the most disgusting, brutal, murderous regime ever concocted by man.

It may be interesting to note that the Germans literally sent Lenin to Russia by train. They knew the effect that the revolution would have on an otherwise aggressive nation in the rising tensions of WWI, and Lenin had pledged that the Red Army would not fight the West.

[monkeysonmars.]

lol what? i don't want to attack you i'm just pointing out you should differentiate the theory of marxism to the actuality of leninist-marxism or stalinist state. you move from marx to stalin and mao like they are the same thing.

[the_green_bastard]

lol what? i don't want to attack you i'm just pointing out you should differentiate the theory of marxism to the actuality of leninist-marxism or stalinist state. you move from marx to stalin and mao like they are the same thing.

lol I know. I apologize if I seemed standoffish. It can be misleading, what I was saying; that's why I was careful to outline a transition between, noting that the concept of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is dangerous in and of itself, while still voicing sympathy towards Marx and Lenin.

[Danish]

Yea, I mean, even in the 1920s not all Marxists were beholden to Lenin or his revolution.

Marxism is best understood as a critique, as social theory. I mean, his seminal work is like 7000 pages of critical analysis of capitalism in England.

[Iskandar]

Clearly you're not familiar with Karl Marx, if you don't know about the "dictatorship of the proletariat."Clearly you don't know the first thing about Marxism if you think the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" refers to dictatorship in the modern sense of the word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

[VomitStainedCretin]

19th century Communism sought to dissolve institutions and authority through mass revolution.

Lenin, whilst advocating the eventual 'withering way of the state', maintained that the Party was central to the communist struggle and that revolution should be accomplished by a small elite of conspirators.

Note the differences?

[MAthiAS]

Yeah vanguard parties kind of suck. Lenin still had some valuable works though.

[Smokey D]

I would further argue that every worker has the right to the full value of their labour.

A worker has the right to the marginal product of his labour, not the total value of his labour. For example, if a worker adds $10 profit to a good during its production, he is entitled to that $10. This has been the starting point of labour economics since the marginal revolution. However, at the same time, the owner of the capital (ie capitalist, though I don't think a capital-proletariat dichotomy always applies) has a right to the marginal product of his capital. Significantly, he has a right to some portion of the profit because he has forgone an income in the short term with the understanding that he would profit in the medium to long term. This is a crucial point misunderstood by many pro-Marxist thinkers. Both worker and boss have made concessions with the expectation to earn money at a later point. Of course, it can be argued (probably rightly) that the capitalist has a disproportional advantage (ie, there is an 'army of the unemployed' though this is becoming less and less accurate), but this can be rectified with the addition of worker friendly legislation and unionisation. I don't think Communism is automatically the best response to the alleged failures of capitalism. It's a false dichotomy to say 'capitalism as we know it is flawed, therefore communism is the only alternative).

Surplus theory of labour value is the basis for exploitation in a capitalist mode of production, but it doesn't end there.

Surplus labour theory of value is Marx's knockout punch against capitalism. All other forms of exploitation either derive from the expropriated labour of the worker or exist due to 'super-exploitative' mechanisms not inherent in capitalism.

[MAthiAS]

Of course, it can be argued (probably rightly) that the capitalist has a disproportional advantage (ie, there is an 'army of the unemployed' though this is becoming less and less accurate), but this can be rectified with the addition of worker friendly legislation and unionisation.
This is also largely due to the relative scarcity of capital compared to labor.

[Smokey D]

Yep, which is impossible to rectify without... additional capital. And for there to be additional capital there must be an incentive to invest, which means there must be secure property rights and a transparent and navigable legal framework.

Crucially, it is the amount of capital in the economy which, more than anything, dictates the per capita income and the distribution of wealth. Disincentivising capital investment by expropriation or nationalisation ultimately harms the worker.