• 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!

Sticks and carrots, socialism and capitalism.

Specialization of labor is promoted by supporters of capitalism, e.g. von Mises and Adam Smith.

Marx believed specialization of labor leads to alienation.



Right, but when he's hungry he has to go out and find someone who both wants arrows and has food to trade. This why barter markets are so inefficient, and why money is used instead. If he's really good at making arrows he can sell them to other tribes, and then he will start to accumulate capital for himself.

There are no socialist ideals here.

Specialization of labor does lead to alienation - Marx also believed that capitalism was a necessary step on the evolution of society towards a post-scarcity economy where society can support the health, happiness and liberty of humanity with a minimum amount of labor. There are some branches of socialism that reject the concept of money, indeed, but the base premise of socialism is a rejection of capitalist ruling classes who generate wealth entirely through ownership. You're arguing against a strawman.

It's also worth pointing that Adam Smith supported the labor theory of value, just as Karl Marx did. The man would most likely have been an anarchist if he'd lived to witness the industrial revolution.
 
This argument is such a lie that the person making it has brown eyes because he is so full of " bleep"

Socialism means that the workers own and control the means of production. Socialism doesn't mean handouts.

Before you reply to me educate yourself about market socialism. Do you also understand the social democracy is different from the cow dung heap that you are shoveling to the unlearned masses?

When workers own and control the means of production, they are called owners. Socialism is retarded.
 
Government is socialism. The right wing cannot prove otherwise and usually appeal to the ignorance of Government just is. Nobody takes right wingers seriously about the whole and entire concept of economics.
 
When workers own and control the means of production, they are called owners. Socialism is retarded.

Market socialism can also be understood as distributed capitalism because the workers earn a higher salary and have job security. Their job will never be outsourced when they are also the owners. They have the incentive to do a good job when they will reap the benefits as the owner instead of just an employee who is seen as a cost by the management who seek to lower their costs to a minimum. It is better for the community because of the higher wages and the money stays in the area instead of going to just one person or being paid as dividends to others outside the area who have no ties to the community.
 
Government is socialism. The right wing cannot prove otherwise and usually appeal to the ignorance of Government just is. Nobody takes right wingers seriously about the whole and entire concept of economics.

You are so completely wrong. Government is NOT socialism! Every society has had a government of some kind. In a socialist society, there is no private property, the government owns everything. In a capitalist society citizens can have money and property.

In both socialism and capitalism there has to be a government, for defense and to make and enforce laws.

If you didn't learn this in public school, I just don't know ...

But the biggest difference between socialism and capitalism is that true socialism does not exist.
 
Market socialism can also be understood as distributed capitalism because the workers earn a higher salary and have job security. Their job will never be outsourced when they are also the owners. They have the incentive to do a good job when they will reap the benefits as the owner instead of just an employee who is seen as a cost by the management who seek to lower their costs to a minimum. It is better for the community because of the higher wages and the money stays in the area instead of going to just one person or being paid as dividends to others outside the area who have no ties to the community.

Well sure! If the workers have enough money to buy the "means of production" they can go right ahead! But then they are owners. And they have to risk their investment.

I mean, really, this should be very obvious.
 
Well sure! If the workers have enough money to buy the "means of production" they can go right ahead! But then they are owners. And they have to risk their investment.

I mean, really, this should be very obvious.

That is an inherent risk of any business and I assumed that was understood. It can be purchased with a business loan or their pensions/401K.
 
You are so completely wrong. Government is NOT socialism! Every society has had a government of some kind. In a socialist society, there is no private property, the government owns everything. In a capitalist society citizens can have money and property.

In both socialism and capitalism there has to be a government, for defense and to make and enforce laws.

If you didn't learn this in public school, I just don't know ...

But the biggest difference between socialism and capitalism is that true socialism does not exist.

Absolute nonsense. I can design a socialist economic system where there is no sitting government. just because the economic system is socialist doesn't mean that there is no private property. You likely also believe that socialist governments must be authoritarian with few rights for the people. That would also be wrong. You think that the system has to be black and white but as for almost anything it exists in shades of grey.
 
Capitalism relies on positive incentives. Create a better or cheaper product or service, and people will voluntarily give you their money in exchange for it. If enough people give you their money in exchange for what you are producing, you might get rich.

Socialism relies on negative incentives. People who work for the state are primarily interested in keeping their jobs. They are paid the same amount regardless of what they produce or how they produce it, because the money for their pay is taken from people coercively, via taxation.



View attachment 67264214

Capitalism is greed based. If you can make.a buck doing it then someone will jump on it. If someone sees someone making a buck then they will jump in too but to succeed they have to be better or faster.

Now capitalist will take every advantage possible. The object it profits. No social conscience involved. So careful monitoring and regulation is required to fit capitalism into for the good of the people.

Socialism doesn't have that built in incentive to prosper that capitalism has. Don't see it working long term.

Don't even understand why the right has gotten all in an uproar about.socialism. nothing either party or anyone running for office even remotely approaches socialism.

Truth is capitalism is what has gotten out.of control in america. Croney capitalism where bought and paid for representatives of our elected government write laws that favor the corporations. Lots of deregulation going.on with trump. Lots of favoritism to the oil industry, mining, logging it goes on.and on.....
 
Now capitalist will take every advantage possible. The object it profits. No social conscience involved. So careful monitoring and regulation is required to fit capitalism into for the good of the people.

The problem is the politicians and bureaucrats doing the regulating are just as greedy and self-interested as the capitalists. That's why there are over 10,000 registered lobbyists in Washington DC.

Truth is capitalism is what has gotten out.of control in america. Croney capitalism where bought and paid for representatives of our elected government write laws that favor the corporations. Lots of deregulation going.on with trump. Lots of favoritism to the oil industry, mining, logging it goes on.and on.....

But you just said you want production decisions to be made by politics and not the market. That's what "regulation" means.
 
The problem is the politicians and bureaucrats doing the regulating are just as greedy and self-interested as the capitalists. That's why there are over 10,000 registered lobbyists in Washington DC.



But you just said you want production decisions to be made by politics and not the market. That's what "regulation" means.

You missed my meaning. Government has to be the regulator. Our government representatives need to work for the good of the people not the corporation. For that to happen we need big money out of politics. We need representatives that work for "we the people" not corporate interest. Not feathering their nest.

How? Well i would severely limit campaign contributions. No corporate money. Severely limit what lobbiest could do. Maybe plea their case but no financial contributions or perks. Make it where there was no financial incentives to being a political representative. In fact make.it where after leaving office they can't serve on some corporate board or become a lobbyist
 
I'm afraid you've got that wrong. In socialism, the STATE owns and controls the means of production. You described the unicorn like end results of Marxism as Marx described it. Unfortunately no nation that became socialist in order to achieve communism has ever moved past that point. Far too many have extended socialism into dictatorship/totalitarianism.

That's generally because the people start to rebel against the loss of freedom, liberty and force the state to act in its interest. Which isn't ever going to be for the people, the people are a resource only.
 
That is an inherent risk of any business and I assumed that was understood. It can be purchased with a business loan or their pensions/401K.

Well yeah. That is CAPITALISM. Any workers who want to take that risk are free to go ahead.
 
You are so completely wrong. Government is NOT socialism! Every society has had a government of some kind. In a socialist society, there is no private property, the government owns everything. In a capitalist society citizens can have money and property.

In both socialism and capitalism there has to be a government, for defense and to make and enforce laws.

If you didn't learn this in public school, I just don't know ...

But the biggest difference between socialism and capitalism is that true socialism does not exist.

Only those ignorant of the whole entire concept of economics, say that.

Government is socialism and has existed as long as organized societies.

Then, Man invented money.
 
Absolute nonsense. I can design a socialist economic system where there is no sitting government. just because the economic system is socialist doesn't mean that there is no private property. You likely also believe that socialist governments must be authoritarian with few rights for the people. That would also be wrong. You think that the system has to be black and white but as for almost anything it exists in shades of grey.

There has never been a successful socialist government, so it's hard to say what a socialist government is.

But if business owners can own the means of production, then there is no private property. If workers buy the business, they become owners/capitalists.

You are very confused.
 
There has never been a successful socialist government, so it's hard to say what a socialist government is.

But if business owners can own the means of production, then there is no private property. If workers buy the business, they become owners/capitalists.

You are very confused.

1929 already happened. Socialism has been bailing out Captialism ever since.
 
Capitalism is greed based. If you can make.a buck doing it then someone will jump on it. If someone sees someone making a buck then they will jump in too but to succeed they have to be better or faster.

Now capitalist will take every advantage possible. The object it profits. No social conscience involved. So careful monitoring and regulation is required to fit capitalism into for the good of the people.

Socialism doesn't have that built in incentive to prosper that capitalism has. Don't see it working long term.

Don't even understand why the right has gotten all in an uproar about.socialism. nothing either party or anyone running for office even remotely approaches socialism.

Truth is capitalism is what has gotten out.of control in america. Croney capitalism where bought and paid for representatives of our elected government write laws that favor the corporations. Lots of deregulation going.on with trump. Lots of favoritism to the oil industry, mining, logging it goes on.and on.....

You are confusing capitalism with corruption. There has always been corruption under any style of government. Socialism actually lends itself more to corruption than capitalism does, because the government is all-powerful and has no competition.

But of course we have plenty of corruption in the US.

If you could separate the idea of corruption from the idea of capitalism, you might see that there is no point in trying to get rid of capitalism. We should all be fighting corruption.
 
Capitalism relies on positive incentives. Create a better or cheaper product or service, and people will voluntarily give you their money in exchange for it. If enough people give you their money in exchange for what you are producing, you might get rich.

Socialism relies on negative incentives. People who work for the state are primarily interested in keeping their jobs. They are paid the same amount regardless of what they produce or how they produce it, because the money for their pay is taken from people coercively, via taxation.



Capitalism does many things well. What it does not do well are things socialism does well.


And vice versa.


You don't want a socialist solution where a capitalist solution works better, and vice versa.

Imagine if the military were privateers. If you can't imagine how terrible that would be, if our military were merely mercinaries for profit. It would be tragic, if that were reality.

Imagine if the fire department were private. Your house is burning, you open your Yelp app and look for fire departmentss with the best rating, call one up, and they say " credit card number please", and your house IS ON FIRE?

So, how do you pay fire fighters? The guy who puts out the most fires gets more money? See what I mean, your simplistic reasoning doesn't play out in the real world, where some things must be socialized, and other things private.


I say: Where does the pendulum rest? It rests upon arriving at dead center.

Capitalism for wants, socialism for needs. Both need to be regulated. There are, of course, grey areas, but they can be worked out.


Your post is simplistic, and note no one I know on the left is asking for a totally socialist country, i.e., "totalitarianism", which is what the USSR was. NO ONE ON THE LEFT is for that.

You guys need to knock it off with this type of argument.
 
Last edited:
You missed my meaning. Government has to be the regulator. Our government representatives need to work for the good of the people not the corporation. For that to happen we need big money out of politics. We need representatives that work for "we the people" not corporate interest. Not feathering their nest.

How? Well i would severely limit campaign contributions. No corporate money. Severely limit what lobbiest could do. Maybe plea their case but no financial contributions or perks. Make it where there was no financial incentives to being a political representative. In fact make.it where after leaving office they can't serve on some corporate board or become a lobbyist

Term limits for congress.
 
There has never been a successful socialist government, so it's hard to say what a socialist government is.

But if business owners can own the means of production, then there is no private property. If workers buy the business, they become owners/capitalists.

You are very confused.

Unfortunately the schools, including universities, have done such a piss poor job of actually educating people in sociopolitical systems, government, Constitution, economics, etc. that some have no clue what the difference is between social contract and socialism. So you get statements that 'all government is socialist' and such as that. It's really sad. And dangerous in that they have no idea what they are voting for.
 
There has never been a successful socialist government, so it's hard to say what a socialist government is.

But if business owners can own the means of production, then there is no private property. If workers buy the business, they become owners/capitalists.

You are very confused.
There would be the same private property as there is now but the ownership and the wealth from it would be more widely distributed among the general population. We would still have the same government services that we have now. From the outside, a market socialist economic plan would not look very different at all from what we have now or that of western Europe, Canada, and other 1st world countries.

Socialism is purely an economic idea. You can have a democratic constitutional government such as we have or you could have an authorization dictatorial government or anything in between.
The fact that the mass employees own the means of production means that businesses are privately owned by a group of owners/workers than by a single owner or a group of shareholders that are managed by a CEO and board of directors.
 
You missed my meaning. Government has to be the regulator. Our government representatives need to work for the good of the people not the corporation.

But working for corporations benefits them more, that's why they do it. Stating what they "should" do is pointless, because they are going to do what's best for themselves.


How? Well i would severely limit campaign contributions. No corporate money. Severely limit what lobbiest could do. Maybe plea their case but no financial contributions or perks. Make it where there was no financial incentives to being a political representative. In fact make.it where after leaving office they can't serve on some corporate board or become a lobbyist

Why would the politicians, who benefit enormously from money in politics, ever even consider getting money out of politics?
 
Food is a need, not a want. Do you support collective farms and government-run grocery stores?

I do support collective farms that are owned by the farmers as well as the grocer and the consumer. I support farm-shares and CSA's because I'm just that kind of a lefty progressive socialist.

Id like to ee our utilities (electiorty, water/sewer, and natural gas) be cooperatives owned by the consumers and the workers and run as a not-for-net-profit basis.
 
Back
Top Bottom