Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Capitalism vs Socialism

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Capitalism vs Socialism

    While I dedicated a life career to fighting communism and the way of life that it represented, those today who are advocating socialism, which Marx believed represented only a half step to communism, do not understand the fundamental difference between capitalism and socialism. This interview talks to a fundamental difference between the two ideologies. Se https://video.foxnews.com/v/58487771...#sp=show-clips. If the website address does not work for you, google Levin-Gilder interview Fox.
    Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

  • #2
    Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post
    While I dedicated a life career to fighting communism and the way of life that it represented, those today who are advocating socialism, which Marx believed represented only a half step to communism, do not understand the fundamental difference between capitalism and socialism. This interview talks to a fundamental difference between the two ideologies. Se https://video.foxnews.com/v/58487771...#sp=show-clips. If the website address does not work for you, google Levin-Gilder interview Fox.
    Capitalism and socialism are somewhat opposing schools of thought in economics. The central arguments in the socialism vs. capitalism debate are about economic equality and the role of government. Socialists believe economic inequality is bad for society, and the government is responsible for reducing it via programs that benefit the poor (e.g., free public education, free or subsidized healthcare, social security for the elderly, higher taxes on the rich). On the other hand, capitalists believe that the government does not use economic resources as efficiently as private enterprises do, and therefore society is better off with the free market determining economic winners and losers.
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      The interview has a more interesting and coherent difference, come back when you do the homework.
      Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

      Comment


      • #4
        An interesting perspective from Gilder, and one of a few essential ways to view and describe the differences. He makes a good point that socialism, of which communism is another form(or "flavor") of, assumes there is little left to learn or increase in what we know, hence we can make plans that assume no significant changes coming in the future. Whereas capitalism is based upon creativity and displays a flexibility to adapt as knowledge increases and provided for change, especially increased efficiencies.

        If we can include some variations not presented in the OP link, I'd like to offer that one difference between the two is that socialism assumes humans will always be so altruistic as to be willing to say work twice as long, hard, and productive as needed to provide for their own "needs", such that they willingly share the excess (extra half) with others. Of course, history shows so far that humans have to be forced to work more to produce what they can't keep, hence socialism is usually another form of tyranny.

        Capitalism on the other hand is based upon incentive and reward, where gains are proportional to efforts and energy applied and results are kept by the producer. Capitalism encourages and rewards creativity, especially in form of innovation and increased efficiencies and productivity (also known as profitability).

        Another way to express would be that capitalism encourages going after and achieving the carrot(s) dangling in front of us while socialism focuses on beating with the stick to drive us to make carrots for others.

        One other interesting point was Gilder's view that A.I. will not replace humans or jobs, might do just the opposite. Machines/computers can only work with what humans put into them and have next to no capacity to be creative or inventive to the degree that humans can. GIGO
        Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
        Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

        Comment


        • #5
          I have been avoiding Gilder because he seems to be a theory guy. I'm more of a pragmatist or empiricist. Empiricist are determinists by nature. We see theories as approximations even when applied to things such as the laws of physics. A law is simply those things that by general agreement are irrefutable within the framework specified. To accomplish any goal you assume that a cause will have a predictable effect or you could say an application of accepted laws. A theorist is not constrained by existing laws but uses "creativity" to try and formulate new theories that may become "laws".

          There is much talk these days of quantum mechanics breaking the established laws as the theory becoming part of common knowledge. Basically it seems to be an opening to deconstruct determinism. As far as I know there is no evidence that the inderterminism observed at tiny scales has any effect on how deterministic events are at larger scales. Determinism has remained unassailable and continues to deconstruct the values of previous generations such as faith.

          Dan Dennett has done a good job of defending free will against scientific pundits especially neurologists. You can check out his lectures if you are interested in that sort of thing. People like Dennett are labeled as compatilists but he maintains he is a determinist. What he actually is is an American pragmatist. European philosophers would call it the school of the wishy washy. As an Empiricist I wear the wishy washy title with pride. I'm concerned with the applicability of theory not the theory itself.

          So what does all of the above have to do with the video in question you ask? Well my world view is centered around the theory of evolution. AI may or may not evolve consciousness but it seems based on deep history that given enough time and environmental change it should. This is where I part company with Gilder. What he gets right is as ever comic book author seems to realize is that people like those at Google have no idea when or how that will happen or what the consequences will be. I think he would agree that it is their arrogance that will be their end and that is the problem with socialism.

          I have more to say later.
          We hunt the hunters

          Comment


          • #6
            In 2018 -- indeed, for pretty much the whole of the post-WW2 period -- the issue is not "capitalism vs socialism." It's "socialism vs corporatism."

            . . . . What is corporatism? In a (somewhat inaccurate) phrase, socialism for the bourgeois. It has the outward form of capitalism in that it preserves private ownership and private management, but with a crucial difference: as under socialism, government guarantees the flow of material goods, which under true capitalism it does not. In classical capitalism, what has been called the "night-watchman" state, government's role in the economy is simply to prevent force or fraud from disrupting the autonomous operation of the free market. The market is trusted to provide. Under corporatism, it is not, instead being systematically manipulated to deliver goods to political constituencies. This now includes basically everyone from the economic elite to ordinary consumers.

            Unlike socialism, corporatism understands that direct government ownership of the means of production does not work, except in the limiting case of infrastructure.1 But it does not represent a half-way condition between capitalism and socialism. This is what the West European nations, with their mixed economies in which government owned whole industries, tried to create until Thatcherism. Corporatism blends socialism and capitalism not by giving each control of different parts of the economy, but by combining socialism's promise of a government-guaranteed flow of material goods with capitalism's private ownership and management.

            What makes corporatism so politically irresistible is that it is attractive not just to the mass electorate, but to the economic elite as well. Big business, whatever its casuists at the Wall Street Journal editorial page may pretend, likes big government, except when big government gets greedy and tries to renegotiate the division of spoils. Although big business was an historic adversary of the introduction of the corporatist state, it eventually found common ground with it. The first thing big business has in common with big government is managerialism. The technocratic manager, who deals in impersonal mass aggregates, organizes through bureaucracy, and rules through expertise without assuming personal responsibility, is common to both. The second thing big business likes about big government is that it has a competitive advantage over small business in doing business with it and negotiating favors. Big government, in turn, likes big business because it is manageable; it does what it is told. It is much easier to impose affirmative action or racial sensitivity training on AT&T than on 50,000 corner stores. This is why big business has become a key enforcer of political correctness. The final thing big business likes about big government is that, unlike small government, it is powerful enough to socialize costs in exchange for a share of the profits. . . . .

            The fundamental essence of corporatism is not technocratic but moral: what does government have the responsibility to do? What do people have the right to demand be done for them?

            The economic Left likes corporatism for three reasons:
            1. It satisfies its lust for power.
            2. It makes possible attempts to redistribute income.
            3. It enables them to practice #2 while remaining personally affluent.
            The economic Right likes corporatism for three different reasons:
            1. It enables them to realize capitalist profits while unloading some of the costs and risks onto the state.
            2. The ability to intertwine government and business enables them to shape government policy to their liking.
            3. They believe the corporatist state can deliver social peace and minimize costly disruptions. . . . .


            http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1144682/posts
            In the corporatist society, there are still substantial bases of power independent of government so that government can't just run wild seizing assets and people a la communism, but given the spate of compromises over the years, like the 1996 Telecommunications Act, or the 2008 Detroit Bailout, the coziness between business and government is rather noxious. While saving us from the crazed murderousness of communism, corporatism is nearly as hobbling and as restrictive and as mind-numbing as British Classic Labour socialism of the 1970s. It's almost as stupid, too.
            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post

              The interview has a more interesting and coherent difference, come back when you do the homework.
              I'm not in one of your classes, nor do I care to be.

              Write better questions next time.
              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • #8
                Good replies so far, I would agree that corporatism more accurately reflects the current state of affairs and is why China is seen as less of an outlier than a communist state would be expected. Corporatism and Globalism are a natural match in the current system because nationalism interferes with the insurance of open access to markets and resources.
                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • #9
                  After 2 minutes of video it's already clear that the guy knows nothing about capitalism and socialism.
                  But after all, it's FOX.
                  There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                    Good replies so far, I would agree that corporatism more accurately reflects the current state of affairs and is why China is seen as less of an outlier than a communist state would be expected. Corporatism and Globalism are a natural match in the current system because nationalism interferes with the insurance of open access to markets and resources.
                    Gilder in the interview talked to the industrial revolution and Marx's assumption that it was as far as mankind could go and therefore capitalism could not sustain a growth in wealth, and he made the error of communism would redistribute the wealth. We see where that went after 70 years in the Soviet Union and China in a shorter time. Gilder's latest book is about after Google and the current notion that AI and robots will replace man and we can go no farther.
                    Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Emtos View Post
                      After 2 minutes of video it's already clear that the guy knows nothing about capitalism and socialism.
                      But after all, it's FOX.
                      So, give us your lesson on the difference between capitalism and socialism.
                      Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                        An interesting perspective from Gilder, and one of a few essential ways to view and describe the differences. He makes a good point that socialism, of which communism is another form(or "flavor") of, assumes there is little left to learn or increase in what we know, hence we can make plans that assume no significant changes coming in the future. Whereas capitalism is based upon creativity and displays a flexibility to adapt as knowledge increases and provided for change, especially increased efficiencies.

                        If we can include some variations not presented in the OP link, I'd like to offer that one difference between the two is that socialism assumes humans will always be so altruistic as to be willing to say work twice as long, hard, and productive as needed to provide for their own "needs", such that they willingly share the excess (extra half) with others. Of course, history shows so far that humans have to be forced to work more to produce what they can't keep, hence socialism is usually another form of tyranny.

                        Capitalism on the other hand is based upon incentive and reward, where gains are proportional to efforts and energy applied and results are kept by the producer. Capitalism encourages and rewards creativity, especially in form of innovation and increased efficiencies and productivity (also known as profitability).

                        Another way to express would be that capitalism encourages going after and achieving the carrot(s) dangling in front of us while socialism focuses on beating with the stick to drive us to make carrots for others.

                        One other interesting point was Gilder's view that A.I. will not replace humans or jobs, might do just the opposite. Machines/computers can only work with what humans put into them and have next to no capacity to be creative or inventive to the degree that humans can. GIGO
                        Glider juxtaposed creativity versus planned; creativity being more capable in dealing with the surprises in life and the turns/directions of mankind's endeavors/industries. The key aspect is in human nature and the point you make about altruism versus self-interest has been an old critique of socialism starting with Aristotle's critique of Plato's utopian Republic. He believed man would be more interested in 'mine' than 'their' interests.
                        Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post
                          While I dedicated a life career to fighting communism and the way of life that it represented, those today who are advocating socialism, which Marx believed represented only a half step to communism, do not understand the fundamental difference between capitalism and socialism. This interview talks to a fundamental difference between the two ideologies. Se https://video.foxnews.com/v/58487771...#sp=show-clips. If the website address does not work for you, google Levin-Gilder interview Fox.
                          ? Where do you learn these things? No one is calling for communism. What kind of socialism are you referring to? Democratic? National? I'd do more research and wouldn't be so paranoid. You can't go around thinking like that, that's dangerous. Pure propaganda.

                          Oh, please don't post Mark Levin or Fox. That could be part of the problem here.

                          BTW, capitalists are in the republican party because they're in the 1% and enjoy the tax breaks. Most people in the middle class aren't capitalists. You're wealthy?


                          Untitled.jpg
                          Last edited by inevtiab1e; 15 Oct 18, 17:51.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                            In the corporatist society, there are still substantial bases of power independent of government so that government can't just run wild seizing assets and people a la communism, but given the spate of compromises over the years, like the 1996 Telecommunications Act, or the 2008 Detroit Bailout, the coziness between business and government is rather noxious. While saving us from the crazed murderousness of communism, corporatism is nearly as hobbling and as restrictive and as mind-numbing as British Classic Labour socialism of the 1970s. It's almost as stupid, too.

                            The similarity between the industrial age and with contemporary corporate moves into the internet, SpaceX, etc. is that the corporation with the profit/wealth pursuit did things the governments could not do. The question is can corporate societies bring everyone, or the vast majority, along in a good life?
                            Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post

                              So, give us your lesson on the difference between capitalism and socialism.
                              Gilder claims that creativity is the foundation of capitalism. It's wrong. The basis of capitalism is the ownership of means of production and exploitation of others humans for personnal profit.

                              Gilder then claims that socialism is based on planning and leads to tiranny. It's also wrong. Socialism is based on common ownership of means of production and lacks the exploitation of humans by other humans for personal profit.
                              There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X