Socialism and Capitalism suffer from one specific problem which leads to a meltdown

Socialism and Capitalism both suffer from one specific problem and that is they both require a strong benevolent presence to be present all along the way or else the system gets corrupt and then all hell breaks loose.

In Socialism the state has a bunch of entitlement programs, free public college, free healthcare, etc but eventually the government gets corrupt and starts mismanaging the resources and SHTF.

In Capitalism everyone starts out competing fairly but then as a company gets bigger and more successful they start bribing the state to get a better advantage over their competitors and sooner or later you'll end up in an oligarchy or basically fascism.

I simplified it as much as I can but really both people that believe in these systems have this fantasy that everyone will always love each other and NO ONE WILL EVER WANT TO BE CORRUPT.

Libertarians, anarcho capitalist, free market guys, Milton Friedman nut huggers, Socialists, Liberals, Progressives, etc all can try to say that somehow the EXTREMELY HIGH CHANCE OF CORRUPTION doesnt really exist but it does.

The USA which started out as one of the best capitalist nations eventually ended up as an oligarchy.

Venezuela being a socialist country suffers from alot of ccrruption in the state and many countries that claim not being communist but being socialist which technically there is a difference, are still suffering because of the corruption.

a reply to: aiolosmartine

No, if you accept the implications of Acton's postulate:

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority."

-Lord Acton

Capitalism, being the absence of state economic control, requires no strong benevolent controller.

It is the only alternative to monopoly power, the others being state or state-sponsored monopolies.

a reply to: aiolosmartine

In college, I learned that Socialism is the highest form of government and that Capitalism is eventually doomed to fail because it requires infinite growth even though we live in a finite system of resources. Since both systems each has their faults, I think a combination of Socialism and Capitalism would be best for everyone. We can call it Socio-cap.

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: aiolosmartine

In college, I learned that Socialism is the highest form of government and that Capitalism is eventually doomed to fail because it requires infinite growth even though we live in a finite system of resources. Since both systems each has their faults, I think a combination of Socialism and Capitalism would be best for everyone. We can call it Socio-cap.

I never expected to see that written so clearly, thank you.

This is the problem that we have, our education system has entirely misinformed our youth as to the nature of human interaction.

It has primed the next generation to feel "liberated" by the increase in government authority.

This is a ruse, a trap and a potentially quantifiable attack on the values of the nation, that of the absolute primacy of the right to person and property.

originally posted by: lostbook

In college, I learned that Socialism is the highest form of government and that Capitalism is eventually doomed to fail because it requires infinite growth even though we live in a finite system of resources. Since both systems each has their faults, I think a combination of Socialism and Capitalism would be best for everyone. We can call it Socio-cap.

Let's hear from Grampaw Karl on this subject.

In Karl Marx's critique of political economy and subsequent Marxian analyses, the capitalist mode of production refers to the systems of organizing production and distribution within capitalist societies. Private money-making in various forms (renting, banking, merchant trade, production for profit, etc.) preceded the development of the capitalist mode of production as such. The capitalist mode of production proper, based on wage-labour and private ownership of the means of production, and on industrial technology, began to grow rapidly in Western Europe from the industrial revolution, later extending to most of the world.[1]

Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory)

check the wiki sources carefully.

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: aiolosmartine

In college, I learned that Socialism is the highest form of government and that Capitalism is eventually doomed to fail because it requires infinite growth even though we live in a finite system of resources. Since both systems each has their faults, I think a combination of Socialism and Capitalism would be best for everyone. We can call it Socio-cap.

Are you freeking serious? They actually indoctrinate you with that crap? Well I guess that was inevitable as the Progressives took over the education system.


BTW, Socio-cap as you call it is what China is.... very similar to Fascism.

socialism ALMOST has it right. if we had free energy, money wouldn't be needed anymore. we could just work at what we liked, and give each other stuff for free. have robots do the stuff we don't want to do. energy is the linch pin to all this.

originally posted by: undo
socialism ALMOST has it right. if we had free energy, money wouldn't be needed anymore. we could just work at what we liked, and give each other stuff for free. have robots do the stuff we don't want to do. energy is the linch pin to all this.

Socialism has it right for Legoland, not reality.

a reply to: undo

Well, that and corruption.

Corruption will always turn them into a political oligarchy of an elite "political class" and the "equal (equally miserable) masses class".

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: undo
socialism ALMOST has it right. if we had free energy, money wouldn't be needed anymore. we could just work at what we liked, and give each other stuff for free. have robots do the stuff we don't want to do. energy is the linch pin to all this.

Socialism has it right for Legoland, not reality.

well reality could use a good dose of reality: abuse people and they eventually abuse you back. and also begin abusing themselves. and the guy next door. and the guys down the street. and etc.

if you came to my house for a visit, let's say i invited you over for a cup of coffee, and i said okay you have two choices: i can make this cup of coffee and give it to you for free, or i can charge you money for it. hehe

yeeeep. now, lets say john doe in tibet makes really cool wall hangings, and since it doesn't cost him any money to create them, he doesn't have to charge you for them. you just go to his website, place an order and because energy is free, doesn't cost him a thing to send it to you. that's not so bad is it?

a reply to: greencmp

It doesnt require no strong benevolent controller it requires strong benevolent participators WHICH WILL NOT GET GREEDY ENOUGH TO WANT TO TRY TO BRIBE THE STATE TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE OVER ITS COMPETITORS which if you follow the trend of human behavior know that is damn near impossible.

The state then complies and soon it becomes a trend and then you got an oligarchy, that is the problem with capitalism.

originally posted by: aiolosmartine

In Socialism the state has a bunch of entitlement programs, free public college, free healthcare, etc but eventually the government gets corrupt and starts mismanaging the resources and SHTF.

I do agree to an extent that mismanagement can be a serious issue within the socialist ideal. We tend to see an eventual concentration of power in both left and right ideas as they progress. It's really just a choose your flavor of oligarchy kind of thing. Which illusion is most appealing I'd guess is the best way to describe it.

However, with either system, the onus is on the voters to hold the elected responsible. This is of course applicable to only those who live under governance that's democratically dictated. I'n my view either system is workable so long as you have an informed responsible populace. This is also assuming the democratic process is not compromised to a point where it's not effective.

In Capitalism everyone starts out competing fairly but then as a company gets bigger and more successful they start bribing the state to get a better advantage over their competitors and sooner or later you'll end up in an oligarchy or basically fascism.

This idea that capitalism somehow magically allows everyone to start on even ground is a fantasy. It doesn't exist. Never has, never will. The world doesn't exist in a vacuum. There will always be people/groups in positions of strength, and people/groups in positions of weakness. Capitalism doesn't eliminate that like some form of hokey pokey magic.

The USA which started out as one of the best capitalist nations eventually ended up as an oligarchy.

The United States was always an oligarchy. As a matter of fact, it was a slave holding society where blacks, women, low income white males, and Native Americans etc etc didn't even have voting rights. The most blatant examples of oligarchy were how the Senate and Supreme Court were appointed, not elected. This still holds true for the Supreme Court even to this very day.

There were however some major advancements within what was built by the American founders. The separation of church state was a major leap forward in ideals. "No religious test shall ever be required" essentially put up a barrier to theocracy. We still see religion creep within the governance, but the barrier remains.

You offered criticisms to both systems but you offered no solutions. Without even a mention of a possible solution your post only feels half way complete. If you don't have a solution, then it at least bears mentioning.

originally posted by: aiolosmartine
a reply to: greencmp

It doesnt require no strong benevolent controller it requires strong benevolent participators WHICH WILL NOT GET GREEDY ENOUGH TO WANT TO TRY TO BRIBE THE STATE TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE OVER ITS COMPETITORS which if you follow the trend of human behavior know that is damn near impossible.

The state then complies and soon it becomes a trend and then you got an oligarchy, that is the problem with capitalism.

like the laws that ended child labor exploitation and monopolies.

originally posted by: infolurker
Are you freeking serious? They actually indoctrinate you with that crap? Well I guess that was inevitable as the Progressives took over the education system.


BTW, Socio-cap as you call it is what China is.... very similar to Fascism.

Just calling it crap and blaming Progressives which displays your bias on this topic. How about explaining why???

The other poster explained his reasoning behind what he was talking about to some degree. You just called it crap, blamed a group of people without showing any connection and make a predictive outcome again without a connection. But can you back any of it up??

a reply to: GD21D

There will always be people/groups in positions of strength, and people/groups in positions of weakness. Capitalism doesn't eliminate that like some form of hokey pokey magic.

Then I dont ever want any school in the USA telling kids growing how capitalism is this ABSOLUTE beautiful thing in the world.

I dont want that BS being fed to kids because thats the type of thing that was showed down my throat and reading how Karl Marx was a failure which to be fair his ideology is but the history books are so impartial and only trash Karl Marx.

I want the truth being told how billionaires can screw you over and buy your whole political system.

Keep it real in the schools not this fairy tale about how capitalism is the best because EVERYONE BENEFITS FROM IT.

I want that garbage out then.

originally posted by: aiolosmartine
a reply to: GD21D

There will always be people/groups in positions of strength, and people/groups in positions of weakness. Capitalism doesn't eliminate that like some form of hokey pokey magic.

Then I dont ever want any school in the USA telling kids growing how capitalism is this ABSOLUTE beautiful thing in the world.

I dont want that BS being fed to kids because thats the type of thing that was showed down my throat and reading how Karl Marx was a failure which to be fair his ideology is but the history books are so impartial and only trash Karl Marx.

I want the truth being told how billionaires can screw you over and buy your whole political system.

Keep it real in the schools not this fairy tale about how capitalism is the best because EVERYONE BENEFITS FROM IT.

I want that garbage out then.

Wait.......What? Are you arguing against your own premise?

Furthermore, I don't want the education system teaching biased views either. I'd like to see complements where applicable and criticisms when warranted.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: aiolosmartine

No, if you accept the implications of Acton's postulate:

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority."

-Lord Acton

Capitalism, being the absence of state economic control, requires no strong benevolent controller.

It is the only alternative to monopoly power, the others being state or state-sponsored monopolies.

It doesnt require no strong benevolent controller it requires strong benevolent participators WHICH WILL NOT GET GREEDY ENOUGH TO WANT TO TRY TO BRIBE THE STATE TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE OVER ITS COMPETITORS which if you follow the trend of human behavior know that is damn near impossible.

The state then complies and soon it becomes a trend and then you got an oligarchy, that is the problem with capitalism.

a reply to: mOjOm

Fact: Socialism = Failure

Say that 3 times... LOL

fee.org...

Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.

In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.

A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.

Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!

Socialism also collapsed because of its failure to operate under a competitive, profit-and-loss system of accounting. A profit system is an effective monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the public interest are penalized with losses.

By rewarding success and penalizing failure, the profit system provides a strong disciplinary mechanism which continually redirects resources away from weak, failing, and inefficient firms toward those firms which are the most efficient and successful at serving the public. A competitive profit system ensures a constant reoptimization of resources and moves the economy toward greater levels of efficiency. Unsuccessful firms cannot escape the strong discipline of the marketplace under a profit/loss system. Competition forces companies to serve the public interest or suffer the consequences.

Under central planning, there is no profit-and-loss system of accounting to accurately measure the success or failure of various programs. Without profits, there is no way to discipline firms that fail to serve the public interest and no way to reward firms that do. There is no efficient way to determine which programs should be expanded and which ones should be contracted or terminated.

Without competition, centrally planned economies do not have an effective incentive structure to coordinate economic activity. Without incentives the results are a spiraling cycle of poverty and misery. Instead of continually reallocating resources towards greater efficiency, socialism falls into a vortex of inefficiency and failure.

A third fatal defect of socialism is its blatant disregard for the role of private property rights in creating incentives that foster economic growth and development. The failure of socialism around the world is a “tragedy of commons” on a global scale.

The “tragedy of the commons” refers to the British experience of the sixteenth century when certain grazing lands were communally owned by villages and were made available for public use. The land was quickly overgrazed and eventually became worthless as villagers exploited the communally owned resource.

When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship. While private property creates incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, public property encourages irresponsibility and waste. If everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. Public ownership encourages neglect and mismanagement.

Since socialism, by definition, is a system marked by the “common ownership of the means of production,” the failure of socialism is a “tragedy of the commons” on a national scale. Much of the economic stagnation of socialism can be traced to the failure to establish and promote private property rights.

By their failure to foster, promote, and nurture the potential of their people through incentive-enhancing institutions, centrally planned economies deprive the human spirit of full development. Socialism fails because it kills and destroys the human spirit–just ask the people leaving Cuba in homemade rafts and boats.

The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works.

By its inability to foster, promote and develop the potential of people through incentives, centrally planned economies deprive the human spirit of ambition, aspiration, enterprise, determination and industry. What happens to the aspiration of a human being when there is essentially no reason to do anything? Nothing gets done.

Thus lies the core flaw of collectivist economies: When you inform a laborer that it is essentially irrelevant whether they produce one wicket a day or a hundred, and that it is also irrelevant whether those wickets are quality crafted or thrown together, as they will live in the same government owned apartment, shop at the same meagre stores, and be stuck in the same droning, monotonous job for the rest of their lives... their productivity falls steadily until almost nothing is produced. Multiply that effect by virtually every laborer in the nation, and you soon see why socialist economies are marked by long queues outside stores when the word gets out that they have soap, or bread, or eggs that day. Nobody is producing anything, thus nobody sells anything, thus there is nothing to buy.

The genius of capitalism, and the basic reason why it succeeds where socialism fails, is contained within its core tenet that the free and unfettered market determines profit and loss. Every citizen is empowered to design and market a better mousetrap, provide a better service, or implement a better idea, and let the free choice of the consumer decide to reward them. The potential success of the individual is limited only by their ambition, drive, and intellect, not by slavish adherence to a collectivist Five Year Plan.

universesandbox.com...

originally posted by: GD21D

originally posted by: aiolosmartine
a reply to: GD21D

There will always be people/groups in positions of strength, and people/groups in positions of weakness. Capitalism doesn't eliminate that like some form of hokey pokey magic.

Then I dont ever want any school in the USA telling kids growing how capitalism is this ABSOLUTE beautiful thing in the world.

I dont want that BS being fed to kids because thats the type of thing that was showed down my throat and reading how Karl Marx was a failure which to be fair his ideology is but the history books are so impartial and only trash Karl Marx.

I want the truth being told how billionaires can screw you over and buy your whole political system.

Keep it real in the schools not this fairy tale about how capitalism is the best because EVERYONE BENEFITS FROM IT.

I want that garbage out then.

Wait.......What? Are you arguing against your own premise?

Furthermore, I don't want the education system teaching biased views either. I'd like to see complements where applicable and criticisms when warranted.

My friend I am not arguing against my own premise I am simply saying in my specific reply to you that like you just mentioned I would also like complements where applicable and criticism when warranted.

There are certain fairy tales that get fed to you in school about capitalism that are so much BS its ridiculous.

Karl Marx gets thrashed in the history books and its a fair thrashing that he deserves but then Adam Smith gets a free pass on the cons that can and have typically happened when dealing with the free market philosophy.

a reply to: infolurker

Foundation for Economic Education huh?

What's the matter? Can't think for yourself? Have to site a libertarian think tank?

Of course FEE would never be biased......SMH