So which is better? Progress or Basic Survival?

[gunner154]

Capitalism or Socialism?

In Capitalism, it's every man for himself. Man works for the benefit of himself and society progresses rapidly as a result.

In Socialism, there is a high tendency for man to 'stop working' because no matter how hard you work, your rewards are the same. As a result, society might come to a standstill. Nevertheless, a larger majority of people will have access to basic necessities for survival.

The verdict?

[Marcel71]

Socialisme is the best.

I don't have the time to tell u why...

Funny btw, that you associate Progress with Capitalism and Basic Survival with Socialisme...

I would put it differently around..

Socialisme = Progess

Capitalism = Basic Survival

[Caid Ivik]

Best form of government is spiritual aristocracy...

[Dude_Doc]

In capitalism you exploit people wheter you like it or not. When the economy goes down (the global economy/chaos economy/game economy), people suffer. People who doesn't even know what the global market is.

But in capitalism, you see work as something necessary for you to live. You won't see work as a part of your life, but as a must, as something that is written in the law, and you don't know why, except that you have to do it because you then can go to the bar, have a home and having money for your healthcare. Capitalists, those who are at the top of the "power-scale", they don't work themselves. They own huge chains of corporations that hands them the money.

You, on the other hand, work much more than your boss, but you recieve less. Work more, recieve less. Isn't that strange? Shouldn't you get more money than someone you only see on the front page of the newspaper each day?

Recently, you may have heard about so called "privatization". A firm or corporation that owns. It can be appartments and houses, but also healthcare and schools. This means that ordinary poor and people with many health problems can get a hard time getting medicine and treatment. These private schools can deny you because you don't have the money they "need" so much. They would rather see you die than getting free healthcare.

In socialism, FREE healthcare, food and water, education and a place to live is something that is guarenteed to every citizen. In socialism, you work to benefit ALL humans, to care of the environment, to your fellow human being, in other words, everything that IS HUMAN. In capitalism, much of your work goes to competition, competition against other humans, and if not competition then the profit of your bosses. In socialism, we don't need competition because we are NOT working against each other, we are working FOR each other.

Socialism is also introduces a planned economy. This means that the economy will not go up and down as in capitalism, but it will be planned by the state. This means that money will go to the places intended to go to, not to profit, but to help the people.

Now, you have probably heard much about socialism being the state and people should obey it. The state is not somekind of person workers work for, it is themselves. The state is a tool of the people, by the people. That is why there can be no socialism without democracy. In order for people to know what they want, they need to vote about it. Except democracy, freedom of speach and freedom of the press, among other necessary freedoms, are a MUST. They are required.

There is much more, and I'm sure I didn't write down everything. You should check out:

http://www.marxists.org

...to find out more about what socialism is all about, why capitalism is wrong, and so on.

[Caid Ivik]

About those socialist advantages, it's not free, you have to pay tremendous taxes. Philosophically, it's a barter of responsibility. You give resources to someone you take as wiser or objectively competent, and expect from him that he will do what you all need.

[Edric O]

Before we begin, let's get one thing straight:

SOCIALISM DOES NOT GIVE EVERY MAN THE SAME REWARD REGARDLESS OF HIS WORK.

Socialism is a highly egalitarian system, and certainly far more egalitarian than capitalism, but it is not absolutely egalitarian. The argument that "nobody would do any work in socialism because you get the same rewards anyway" is a straw man. Socialism rewards hard work. People who work more, receive more. The difference between rich and poor is much, much smaller than in capitalism, but it still exists.

Here's a graph showing wealth distribution in capitalism vs. natural wealth distribution (a bell curve). The distribution of wealth in socialism would look very similar to the natural one:

Socialism gives every man - regardless of his work - the basic necessities of life (food, drinking water, a home, health care, and education). But in order to get anything else (such as, for example, a car or a computer) you must work for it.

Also, most importantly, capitalism does not distribute rewards according to each man's work. While it is true that work is a factor in getting rich under capitalism, there are also many hard working people who are poor and many lazy bums who are rich. This is because most wealth in a capitalist system is accumulated through exploitation (see this topic). Socialism removes that exploitation and rewards people according to their work. The richest people in socialism would be teachers, doctors and scientists (as opposed to capitalism, where the richest people are businessmen).

To sum up, socialism does the following things:

1. ensures that every man has his basic needs met

2. rewards people according to their work

3. keeps the difference between rich and poor very small

[Caid Ivik]

You still naivelly believe in superiority of theory over practice? You know, such scales are just twists of statistics. Some small things (diamonds, art) have an extremely high value, however, they are somehow unsellable. Have you been in Rome? Catholic Church owns uncountable treasuries, Vatican is surely richer than any private corporation. However, it's the best example how cannot be any value used as capital or a currency. You can say: everything can be written in numbers. I answer, it is not possible to count with every number.

[gunner154]

Is it even possible then for a large majority of people to not work, and yet just receive basic necessities? Wouldn't that put a lot of pressure on the people who are working, so that they provide the basics for these lazy bums? Wouldn't society go downhill.

[Caid Ivik]

Ah, you've been in Slovakia?  ;D

[Edric O]

Is it even possible then for a large majority of people to not work, and yet just receive basic necessities? Wouldn't that put a lot of pressure on the people who are working, so that they provide the basics for these lazy bums? Wouldn't society go downhill.

A society in which the majority of people don't care about getting anything beyond the basic necessities of life?? That kind of society (assuming it can actually exist) would collapse no matter the system. If people don't care about having more than basic necessities, then capitalism doesn't work either, because people don't want to get rich and they won't work more than is absolutely necessary just to stay alive.

But since capitalism has not collapsed all by itself, and since the majority of people do work more than is absolutely necessary just to stay alive, we can easily conclude that most people would not be completely satisfied with merely having their basic needs met.

Basically, Gunner, you're arguing that "people don't want to get rich", which is more of an argument against capitalism than one against socialism. It is also a bad argument: most people DO want to get rich (in the sense of being able to afford more things and have a better life).

[gunner154]

Third World Countries, say for example...

And, from what I understand in my (very limited) general knowledge, if you don't work under capitalism, you won't have a place to stay, you can't get food (you need to steal it or live on leftovers)... you become a vagrant and a beggar, whereas even if you do nothing under socialism, you still get supplies.

Right or wrong?

[Edric O]

Third World Countries, say for example...

What about them?

And, from what I understand in my (very limited) general knowledge, if you don't work under capitalism, you won't have a place to stay, you can't get food (you need to steal it or live on leftovers)... you become a vagrant and a beggar, whereas even if you do nothing under socialism, you still get supplies.

Right or wrong?

Right. Socialism guarantees something called "the right to life". As long as there is enough food to feed everyone, it would be immoral and absurd to let people starve to death.

Now let me dispel the myth about unmotivated people once and for all:

A man who chooses to do nothing under socialism is a man who does not wish to have anything more than the basic necessities of life. In other words, if most people would choose to do nothing under socialism, that means most people do not wish to have anything more than the basic necessities of life.

But how does a man who does not wish to have anything more than the basic necessities of life behave under capitalism? He does the minimum amount of work necessary in order to get those basic necessities of life. In other words, he takes a minimum wage job and has no ambitions whatsoever. Are most people under capitalism satisfied with minimum wage jobs? Are most people under capitalism completely unambitious? No and no. Therefore, most people want more than just the basic necessities of life. Therefore, most people would NOT choose to do nothing under socialism.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

[Edric O]

To put it in even simpler terms:

A man who would not be motivated to do anything in socialism is a man who would not be motivated to do much in capitalism either. Since most people are motivated in capitalism to do more than just the minimum amount of work necessary to stay alive, they would be motivated to work in socialism as well.

[Acriku]

Before we begin, let's get one thing straight:...

That's an extremely enlightening point Edric, I applaud you for getting that out there. Many people, when defending communism or socialism, never bring that up and thus leaves the person on the offensive neglected of the correct information regarding the true principles of socialism/communism. What you said should be said among the first things said when anyone explains what socialism or communism is.

[Edric O]

Thank you, Acriku. It is amazing how many people oppose socialism and/or communism only because they believe "socialism" and "communism" to be something they are not.

On another note, I need to finish replying to gunner's first post:

In Capitalism, it's every man for himself. Man works for the benefit of himself and society progresses rapidly as a result.

First of all, capitalism is a hell of a lot more complex than that. Second of all, man works for the benefit of himself in socialism and communism too. I've already explained how that happens in socialism, and as for communism (a system in which people work for the common good of society), keep in mind that you are part of society, so the benefit of society involves your own personal benefit as well.

Third of all, "every man for himself" may or may not lead to progress (depending on what exactly you mean by the vague phrase "every man for himself"). The chaos of the Dark Ages was certainly based on an "every man for himself" attitude, and it led to a collapse of civilization, not to any kind of progress.

[Caid Ivik]

You talk about many terms you don't define at first. "Dark ages", for example. Or "capitalism", "man", "progress" etc. You have perfectly described us socialism and communism and nearly refuted every connection of it with practical socialism of post-war Europe and our former chinese, korean and cuban brothers. For if we take capitalism just as dichotomical opposition to Marx' society, then it is much more than hell complex  ;)

[gunner154]

That's really helpful. Thanks.

Makes me feel like being a Socialist...