So my friend asked me to help her with this stuff, since she knows I tend to be pro-socialism. And she is studying at the rival university to mine, which is pro-neoliberalism all way through. Gave me a couple of book chapters and the first sentence is:
Capitalism- denigrated by socialism.
What kind of idiot writes books like that?! That would be enough for me to set the book on fire and piss on it.
Anyway, I really don't know much about this stuff. The only thing I know is that I hate imperialism and how ALL the economies are set up to mantain an elite in power while we poor humans work for them.
The problem with both capitalism and socialism is that in their purest form they both fall foul of the weakness of the human condition - greed, sloth, envy and so on. Unless you can theorise the human element out of them they would both be doomed to fail.
So every country that has anything approaching an operating economy has something in between the two. Even if that "in between" is very much closer to one extreme than the other. For example, no "capitalist" economy has a completely free economy without any regulation, oversight, taxation, etc.
I suspect that the book you're being referred to would be arguing that capitalism should be free of most (or even all) restrictions and that it's socialism that is forcing those restrictions on it and in doing so it is compromising the effectiveness of capitalism and it would probably argue that you end up with the "worst of both worlds" (or something to that effect).
The conclusion they want me to get to is that capitalism is the lesser of the two evils, since socialism has restrictions on economic freedom which is the reason why all the "socialists" states fail. Like Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela. (Ignoring the fact those countries have had boicotts and sanctions from capitalist U.S that has without a doubt affected their economic freedom. But let's not take into account that!)
I don't think there are any real socialists states.
The one that actually has inflation over the skies is Venezuela. But not sure if Venezuela can be considered socialist.
Writing 6 novels. I just finished novel 6 about ten minutes ago. you should be grateful I even bothered to grace you with my presence. It's 00:32 and I am fucking knackered
But I was going for the whole genocide thing that Israel is aiming for. Complete elimination of your enemies ala Lannister style.
Scandinavia is Margaery Tyrell. 100%.
EDIT: Che Guevara was Robb Stark. I think he even was betrayed or something??? Don't know. Will have to look into my history.
The conclusion they want me to get to is that capitalism is the lesser of the two evils, since socialism has restrictions on economic freedom which is the reason why all the "socialists" states fail. Like Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela. (Ignoring the fact those countries have had boicotts and sanctions from capitalist U.S that has without a doubt affected their economic freedom. But let's not take into account that!)
Playing Devil's Advocate, the one benefit of Capitalism over Socialism is that it copes better with those aforementioned human frailties. If someone is greedy it allows them to be greedy. If someone is lazy they get nothing. And so on. Socialism doesn't deal with these so well.
The downside to it is that it treats the vast majority of people like shit.
OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:The problem with both capitalism and socialism is that in their purest form they both fall foul of the weakness of the human condition - greed, sloth, envy and so on. Unless you can theorise the human element out of them they would both be doomed to fail.
Exactly. The problem both with communism and libertarianism is that they have a misguided view of humanity. They believe all humans could be new proletarian workers (for communism), or homini oeconomici (for libertarianism). The truth is: Most people are something in between.
The truth is: Pragmatism works best. You can start with communistic ideals, or libertarian ideals; in the end, if you want your country to work, you'll need a bit of both. Just look at the two countries that are the biggest economic powers in the world. One started libertarian (USA), the other started communist (China). Both are now mixtures.
Personally, I think there are enormous problems with any pure form of Capitalism as well as any pure form of Socialism. I'm not sure if there are any examples of either of these economic models in their pure form that actually work in the real world.
I also don't think there is a single economic model that best provides any sort of economic utopia so, whatever gets implemented will have pro's and con's so the deal here would be to go with model that is balanced to provide as optimal an outcome, both from a pragmatic view as well as a social equity view, as possible.
And, for that I personally align with a system that is mostly based on capitalism but with strong government involvement in governance and providing a non-capitalist basis for distributing services and goods that ensures all basic needs are met for all people at all times.
So, yeah, I don't have any issues at all with the concept of private corporate ownership that is allowed to compete for market share on the basis of cost/quality/innovation simply because this is the best most effective way to ensure that R&D takes place and that goods are priced according their viability. But non of that works in a broader social context if there aren't enforceable standards around things like, ensuring working conditions/pay are reasonable/safe/equitable, as well as limiting or recompensing for things like pollution levels etc.
I think every government should ensure it is responsible for things like, providing health care, fire services, education, energy and social security, I don't really care whether there is a private sector component to all of these area's as long as there is a robust state sponsored guarantee that everyone has access to a serviceable level of these things that people need. And really, non of this needs to fit in an either or mentality of socialism vs capitalism given these sort of things can fit in with either model depending on how you look at the model.
For example - you could argue that a state based purely on capitalism only ever draws its entrepreneurs from a limited pool of people who can afford things like education or those that survive their childhood health challenges and so, isn't fully utilising its resources as well as they can - which is a purely economic argument despite its humanitarian implications. Lifting an entire population's credentials makes good economic sense.
Socialised health makes good capitalist sense in that it typically reduces the cost of health care over all as well as keeps employable/productive resources employable and productive. Regulations around pollutant levels simply recognise the total cost of ownership/production that would be artificially lowered if not regulated and would never be taken into consideration if not enforced.
![[roll]](./images/smilies/roll.gif "roll"){kind=small}
![[none]](./images/smilies/none.gif "none"){kind=small}
