Thinking Beyond Capitalism and Socialism

SwimExpert

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
16,247
Reaction score
1,675
Points
280
Since when is capitalism not an ownership economy? The OP seems to not understand capitalism in the first place, nor socialism for that matter. The defining feature of capitalism is that he who owns the capital that supplies a venture, owns the products of that venture. Whereas socialism sees ownership deriving from those who perform the labor.

To say that the heart of socialism is love of humanity is absolutely preposterous. That has nothing to do with socialism. But even more preposterous is the idea that the heart of capitalism is karma. I'm not going to take the time here to shred the underlying failings of the video's understanding of "Karma" and related concepts. Suffice it to say that a capitalist economy does not concern itself with the quality of a venture's efforts. You might work hard, invest millions, and come out of it with nary a nickel. Capitalism merely recognizes the ownership of the end result as being traced through capital.

Still more ridiculous is to say that either capitalism or socialism fail to assign individual responsibility. In capitalism, the individual responsibility is realized through the ownership of the results of an individual's business efforts. If you invest $1 million and you turn it into $100 million, then it belongs to you. If you invest $1 million and you come out of it flat broke, then that belongs to you as well. If you agree to work for $5 an hour, then that belongs to you. If you insist on $15 an hour and successfully gain agreement from an employer, then that belongs to you as well. In socialism individual responsibility is realized through the ownership of one's labor. If you work hard, the fruit of your labor belongs to you. If you do not work hard the lack of fruit belongs to you. Or, as Lenin said, "He who does not work shall not eat." In each case the individual remains accountable.

People often try to ascribe all kinds of secondary traits to both capitalism and socialism. And it really betrays their lack of intelligence, and education for that matter. Capitalism and socialism are both ownership economies. They just assign ownership in very different ways.
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,607
Reaction score
2,142
Points
1,100
Since when is capitalism not an ownership economy? The OP seems to not understand capitalism in the first place, nor socialism for that matter. The defining feature of capitalism is that he who owns the capital that supplies a venture, owns the products of that venture. Whereas socialism sees ownership deriving from those who perform the labor.

To say that the heart of socialism is love of humanity is absolutely preposterous. That has nothing to do with socialism. But even more preposterous is the idea that the heart of capitalism is karma. I'm not going to take the time here to shred the underlying failings of the video's understanding of "Karma" and related concepts. Suffice it to say that a capitalist economy does not concern itself with the quality of a venture's efforts. You might work hard, invest millions, and come out of it with nary a nickel. Capitalism merely recognizes the ownership of the end result as being traced through capital.

Still more ridiculous is to say that either capitalism or socialism fail to assign individual responsibility. In capitalism, the individual responsibility is realized through the ownership of the results of an individual's business efforts. If you invest $1 million and you turn it into $100 million, then it belongs to you. If you invest $1 million and you come out of it flat broke, then that belongs to you as well. If you agree to work for $5 an hour, then that belongs to you. If you insist on $15 an hour and successfully gain agreement from an employer, then that belongs to you as well. In socialism individual responsibility is realized through the ownership of one's labor. If you work hard, the fruit of your labor belongs to you. If you do not work hard the lack of fruit belongs to you. Or, as Lenin said, "He who does not work shall not eat." In each case the individual remains accountable.

People often try to ascribe all kinds of secondary traits to both capitalism and socialism. And it really betrays their lack of intelligence, and education for that matter. Capitalism and socialism are both ownership economies. They just assign ownership in very different ways.
great post. I'd say though that under socialism the ownership is so diffuse as to be meaningless. In short, the incentive is to not work since you are entitled to the fruits of the other guys work which you also own.

What is needed is a system that can hold you accountable for the work you actually do. That system would be Republican capitalism.
 

SwimExpert

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
16,247
Reaction score
1,675
Points
280
great post. I'd say though that under socialism the ownership is so diffuse as to be meaningless. In short, the incentive is to not work since you are entitled to the fruits of the other guys work which you also own.
The problem with socialism is that it only works on small scales. It's not manageable on large scales. A group of four of five farmers can form a cooperative and be very successful. In true socialism, Bob has no entitlement to the work of Jerry, Frank, and Harry. The payout is proportional to the crops that each has put in, and an accurate accounting can be made, relatively easily, for the small group. Trying to manage socialism on a national scale is about as fruitful as trying to count the sands on a beach.
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,607
Reaction score
2,142
Points
1,100
In true socialism, Bob has no entitlement to the work of Jerry, Frank, and Harry.
I thought Bob was entitled according to his needs as long he produced according to his ability. I have a feeling that even in such a small group situation Bob's needs would always grow and his ability, not to mention his work energy, would always diminish.

Perhaps the most famous example is the Mayflower Pilgrims who tried socialism but then switched to capitalism to avoid starvation.
 

SwimExpert

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
16,247
Reaction score
1,675
Points
280
I thought Bob was entitled according to his needs as long he produced according to his ability. I have a feeling that even in such a small group situation Bob's needs would always grow and his ability, not to mention his work energy, would always diminish.
You need to learn the difference between socialism and communism.

Perhaps the most famous example is the Mayflower Pilgrims who tried socialism but then switched to capitalism to avoid starvation.
You need to learn more history. The Mayflower pilgrims entered into a business agreement, whereby they collectively raised a certain amount of money and agreed to be jointly liable for a loan in order to secure financing for the transatlantic trip. Part of the contract was (essentially) that the profits of the new settlement would be held jointly for a fixed period of time as security for repayment of the loan. In the end, they never did fully repay the loan.
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,607
Reaction score
2,142
Points
1,100
You need to learn the difference between socialism and communism.
why not tell us what the difference is in relation to your statement:
in true socialism, Bob has no entitlement to the work of Jerry, Frank, and Harry.
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,607
Reaction score
2,142
Points
1,100
You need to learn more history. The Mayflower pilgrims entered into a business agreement, whereby they collectively raised a certain amount of money and agreed to be jointly liable for a loan in order to secure financing for the transatlantic trip. Part of the contract was (essentially) that the profits of the new settlement would be held jointly for a fixed period of time as security for repayment of the loan. In the end, they never did fully repay the loan.
the subject was about whether the pilgrims used socialism or capitalism to sustain themselves once they went ashore, not the loan they took out to finance the trip.
 

Abishai100

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2013
Messages
4,876
Reaction score
231
Points
85
The Monster Candy Store


Germania was once over-run by barbarians and bandits. Jewish migrants set up banking contracts with the under-organized German people, and Adolf Hitler unified Germans and drew them to the belief that the outside world (i.e., Jews) were making economics a purgatory.

Today, we can find tasty chocolate candies in a unified Germany that is partaking in the modern free market.

What is our opinion then of German chocolate as it relates to modern capitalism, Germany's history with socialist experiments, and general marketing?

To keep things in perspective while weighing everything in helps us understand, for example, why people are so fascinated by Robin Hood.


:afro:

Robin Hood (Wikipedia)

choc.jpg
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,607
Reaction score
2,142
Points
1,100
The Monster Candy Store


Germania was once over-run by barbarians and bandits. Jewish migrants set up banking contracts with the under-organized German people, and Adolf Hitler unified Germans and drew them to the belief that the outside world (i.e., Jews) were making economics a purgatory.

Today, we can find tasty chocolate candies in a unified Germany that is partaking in the modern free market.

What is our opinion then of German chocolate as it relates to modern capitalism, Germany's history with socialist experiments, and general marketing?

To keep things in perspective while weighing everything in helps us understand, for example, why people are so fascinated by Robin Hood.


:afro:

Robin Hood (Wikipedia)

View attachment 39920
how can you think beyond capitalism and socialism when there are no other choices?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top