• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Capitalism vs Socialism boiled down to the basics

If Sanders had his way he would implement Single Payer, use the power of the Federal Govt to empower Unions and Co-ops, increase taxes on the " Rich " and Corporations and increase Govt spending exponentially

Nationalizing 1/6 of our economy via Medicare for all in the interest of " fairness " isn't exactly Socialism light and the rest of his initiatives would just finish off whats left of a already weak US economy

Well, Sanders doesn't have his way. He was never going to have his way. He is far too leftist for me OR this country bit he has NOT dragged the Democrats into socialism.
 
COLLECTIVE VALUES

A pointless argument, capitalism is superior and won out long ago. I'm shocked a business show would even waste their time with this. What are they, an online discussion board?

Superior to what? You are comparing eggs and apples. Capitalism evolved from barter, the reason being that with sufficient trade the concept of "investment" arrived - and capital provided the means. It still does, after all the centuries since.

But that is no reason whatsoever to think it is the best system to assure a fair and equitable society - because, as it stands, in the US (and most of the world) it isn't. Even in the EU, which is a Social Democracy.

The difference, and it is a major one, is that whilst a Social Democracy realizes the necessity of capital for investment purposes, it accepts that said Capital is private. Whereas Socialism did not since it held that all investment was public in nature. (Ie, governmental.) That change in definition was key to understanding the difference between "Capitalism" (as we know it today) and Socialism (as it was once known since there are damn few countries who still practice it).

Which does not mean that that world can be content with Capitalism per se, because it has had the tragic consequence of excluding everybody but a highly select class from enjoying its "fruits" (ie., profits in terms of Net Wealth).

... the democrats are not moving towards socialism. They were far more liberal decades ago and weren't socialist then either.In action, Bernie was a New Deal Coalition kind of guy, which was good but sadly didn't convince enough people.

Well, they are, because they have to in order to exist. They are has-been party if they do not, given the Income Disparity that exists in America. It is bound to explode into violence sooner or later, and it will be sooner were Trump to win the upcoming election.

See here, "Piketty's History Top 10Percent Pre-Tax Income Share – Europe and US:
Piketty Top10% Income Share.jpg

Unless, of course, you think that in a country of hardworking people, nearly half of all income the economy generates goes to just 10% of the its citizens, and the other 90% must scramble after the other half.

MY POINT?

Any one who does think that above heinous split in income-sharing is "fair because they earned it" is bereft of any sense of collective values of merit. In fact, they are some of the most selfish people on earth.

They forgot that without the 90Percenters, [COLOR="#80000"]they'd be very, very poor people[/COLOR].

Bernie was a welcome klaxon warning of the harm coming, and what needs to be done to avoid the cataclysm (a revolt of the poor against the rich, where the forces of order will not know which side to take).

It's nothing new - it happened twice before, once in Paris (1789) and again in Moscow (1905).

Why not the US, pray tell - because the very same historical conditions exist ... ?
____________________
 
Last edited:
Nationalizing 1/6 of our economy via Medicare for all in the interest of " fairness " isn't exactly Socialism light and the rest of his initiatives would just finish off whats left of a already weak US economy

Nationalizing the police (local, state, FBI) is no "light" matter either. But necessary.

Why is it necessary regarding health-care? Because there is no such thing as an open and competitive market for Health-Care Services. Nowhere in the world - because there are too many people all asking for the same level of service.

The prices in the US are dictated by the Insurance Companies, in cahoots with the AMA, which assure juicy profits for the former and damn fine incomes (4 to 6 times the national average) for the practitioners. (Not to mention BigPharma that makes sky-high profits.)

In Europe, the costs of health-care services are mandated by National Health Care systems, and the practitioners (doctors, nurses, surgeons) make a good living. Not a great living, but a good one.

America's national health-care is aberrant. When it costs twice as much as Europe - for exactly the same quality of serve - something is very, very wrong ...
______________
 
First thing the Fox interviewer says is that Sanders has managed to drag the Democrats into socialism. After an idiotic and outrageously over the top statement like that, there's nothing else to say.

What did you expect from Fox News, anyway?

Given its owner who still dictates reporting style and content ... all the way from London (where he tries to do the same for Great Britain).
____________________
 
Last edited:
He was never going to have his way. He is far too leftist for me OR this country bit he has NOT dragged the Democrats into socialism.

I don't know about that. You are doing some wishful thinking.

In terms of Income Disparity, the US is one of the worst of any developed nation. Here is a depiction of that disparity as measured by the Gini Coefficient:
Gini Index.jpg

The Congressional Progressive Caucus in the HofR is still close to 15% of the total, and all it needs is to exploit the current malaise in the US - that is grand. (Unfortunately, it is being expressed in bullets instead of words.)

The CPC espouses this credo: The Progressive Promise:
1. Fighting for Economic Justice and Security in the U.S. and Global Economies
2. Protecting and Preserving Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
3. Promoting Global Peace and Security
4. Advancing Environmental Protection & Energy Independence

The above link is worth a look if the above objectives are of interest; where they are more amplified ...
 
Last edited:
Here we go again... care to point out a lie I supposedly told?

The facts tend to do that. However, the truth of the matter is that the Democrats have been Socialist for a long time before Sanders. He just shed a bright light on the facts and wanted to expand Socialism even furhter.


Start there.
 
What part is a lie? You made the accusation, you must prove it... or apologize, which you never have to date for your previous attacks on me.

No, YOU made the accusation
Democrats have been Socialist for a long time before Sanders

Prove it.
 
You just absolutely ignored what I said and just started typing, didn't you?

Petty remark and sarcasm. Boys will be boys.

Let's just get on with the debate ...
 
Last edited:
It's about balance people.

BALANCE.

People say this as though "balance" is automatically a good thing, a natural desirable state.

Why is that? Why is "balance" fetishized?

Do you want a "balance" between healthy cells and diseased cells in your body?

Do you want "balance" between law-abiding and law-breaking people?

Do you want a "balance" of slavery and freedom?

Of course you don't. So why would "balance" be in and of itself a desirable thing among alternate economic systems?

And why only "capitalism" and "socialism"? Why not a "balance" between "capitalism" and "mercantilism" or "socialism" and "feudalism"? Why not a "balance" between a money-based system and pure barter? (I mean, why shouldn't we legally mandate that someone accept live chickens as payment for a car?)

And what level of "balance" is optimal? 50/50? 60/40? How do you measure it, and how do you know when it's achieved?

Besides, one can accept that "Pure X" could be a disaster, but that doesn't automatically imply adding the opposite of X into the mix. Why wouldn't the solution to the "disaster" be something as simple as governing out the disastrous practices?

Oh, sure, you can find practical arguments for introducing a bit of "not X" into the mix of X, but "balance," in and of itself, is not a very good one.
 
People say this as though "balance" is automatically a good thing, a natural desirable state.

Why is that? Why is "balance" fetishized?

Do you want a "balance" between healthy cells and diseased cells in your body?

Do you want "balance" between law-abiding and law-breaking people?

Do you want a "balance" of slavery and freedom?

Of course you don't. So why would "balance" be in and of itself a desirable thing among alternate economic systems?

And why only "capitalism" and "socialism"? Why not a "balance" between "capitalism" and "mercantilism" or "socialism" and "feudalism"? Why not a "balance" between a money-based system and pure barter? (I mean, why shouldn't we legally mandate that someone accept live chickens as payment for a car?)

And what level of "balance" is optimal? 50/50? 60/40? How do you measure it, and how do you know when it's achieved?

Besides, one can accept that "Pure X" could be a disaster, but that doesn't automatically imply adding the opposite of X into the mix. Why wouldn't the solution to the "disaster" be something as simple as governing out the disastrous practices?

Oh, sure, you can find practical arguments for introducing a bit of "not X" into the mix of X, but "balance," in and of itself, is not a very good one.

Your examples are laughable.

Balance between business and government produces the best outcomes.

Mixed economies are better overall, there's no perfect economic system on Earth, no one has the silver bullet for unlimited growth and prosperity forever and ever and ever.

But mixed economies tend to benefit more of the population.
 
Your examples are laughable.

What "examples"? I don't think you understood my post if you would say something like this.

Balance between business and government produces the best outcomes.

Mixed economies are better overall, there's no perfect economic system on Earth, no one has the silver bullet for unlimited growth and prosperity forever and ever and ever.

But mixed economies tend to benefit more of the population.

No. You may find practical examples of how a mixed economy may be beneficial, but if it is so, it's not because "balance" is some magical thing. It's because the specific policies themselves are beneficial.

"Balance" itself is not even the goal. Working policies are.

And "balance" isn't even the same thing as "mixed." "Balance" would imply some kind of 50/50 split, or at least nearto.

Something is not automatically optimized because it's "balanced" between opposites.
 
Your examples are laughable.

Balance between business and government produces the best outcomes.

Mixed economies are better overall, there's no perfect economic system on Earth, no one has the silver bullet for unlimited growth and prosperity forever and ever and ever.

But mixed economies tend to benefit more of the population.

Your premise is flawed there is no difference between business and government, they are both arms of the state, the only difference being democratic control vs private control. arguing for a "mixed economy" is just another argument for a system of limited democracy. Limiting democratic control over the state, is nothing new.

Also, there has never been a perfect system that is a utopian ideal equivalent to superstition. Time doesn't simply stand still, history doesn't simply end. The total elimination of democracy is an impossible concept. As is the total elimination of private control. Therefore the argument of "which is better" is a charade from the beginning. It is the equivalent of asking if all people on earth should have a vote every time a wrench is turned.
 
Your premise is flawed there is no difference between business and government, they are both arms of the state, the only difference being democratic control vs private control. arguing for a "mixed economy" is just another argument for a system of limited democracy. Limiting democratic control over the state, is nothing new.

Ummmm

Incorrect in so many ways.

Private business is just that. A private business. A private business may be taxed by the government. And it may be regulated in certain ways (usually for health reasons or to decrease fraud). But is is not an "arm of the state".
 
Ummmm

Incorrect in so many ways.

Private business is just that. A private business. A private business may be taxed by the government. And it may be regulated in certain ways (usually for health reasons or to decrease fraud). But is is not an "arm of the state".

this would imply that said business could operate without the existence of a state, without the existence of currency and without existence for private property laws, the state is the only reason I can't walk into your grocery store and take anything I want by force because I will be arrested by the state.
 
I found this video interesting. Maybe you will as well.



Who's correct, or are both correct, or are both wrong?
She kicked his ass for the first 6:15. Then he trapped her into saying something really stupid and she allowed him to focus on that as his out. Otherwise, she completely wiped the floor with him, even as he was trying to cut her off before she could fully explain her answers, as if explaining macro economics can be done in 8 seconds.
 
this would imply that said business could operate without the existence of a state, without the existence of currency and without existence for private property laws, the state is the only reason I can't walk into your grocery store and take anything I want by force because I will be arrested by the state.

The gymnastics you go through to try to make yoyr square peg fit a round hole.

Institutions that exist with or without government (ie. Independently) are not the arms of the state.

Currency is exactly what two parties agree to exchange for goods/services.

If I wish I can accept chickens as payment.

And private property laws are irrelevant to the discussion.

And a 12 gauge behind the counter serves in many places in the world to deter theft.
 
The gymnastics you go through to try to make yoyr square peg fit a round hole.

Institutions that exist with or without government (ie. Independently) are not the arms of the state.

Currency is exactly what two parties agree to exchange for goods/services.

If I wish I can accept chickens as payment.

And private property laws are irrelevant to the discussion.

And a 12 gauge behind the counter serves in many places in the world to deter theft.

they can exist with limited democracy, that's for sure. But you would have to go back tens of thousands of years to find a business that existed without a government or state of any kind.

you can claim any property you like with a "12 gauge" you can claim all of australia to be your private property if you like, but you wont be able to enforce much, but the reason you are allowed to claim your home or your grocery store for example, as your property is because of the state.
 
they can exist with limited democracy, that's for sure. But you would have to go back tens of thousands of years to find a business that existed without a government or state of any kind.

you can claim any property you like with a "12 gauge" you can claim all of australia to be your private property if you like, but you wont be able to enforce much, but the reason you are allowed to claim your home or your grocery store for example, as your property is because of the state.

Businesses coexisting with governments does not mean the businesses are an arm of government....

And businesses survive even in the absence of government....

They have for thousands of years... And will in the future.
 
what currency do they use

Not that it is relevant... Food, Somali shillings, American shillings, Kenyan dollars, barter.....


There was no state so the Somali shillings were taken on faith...


So, hundreds of businesses and no government/state to be found.
 
Not that it is relevant... Food, Somali shillings, American shillings, Kenyan dollars, barter.....


There was no state so the Somali shillings were taken on faith...


So, hundreds of businesses and no government/state to be found.

tribal governments are still governments
 
Back
Top Bottom