Socialism vs. Capitalism

[Person Man]

Regulated Capitalism. We need strong investor, employee and consumer protections and we need a strong civil service which will create jobs and help people get to work. We need better roads and more funding for scientific research that will not be economically productive immediately, but will be crucial to our continued success. Other than that, we should make sure that private enterprise and commerce is unobstructed.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay then, you meant state control/welfare vs "the deregulated market" (not that I didn't think that wasn't what you meant originally; I'm just doubtful of whether the word "socialism" or even "capitalism" can apply to such a system. Yes, I am big on semantics. It also involves a dichotomy I particularly dislike, simply because it assumes we all be 'capitalists' if there wasn't a state in the way - for Middle Class Americans, Perhaps...).

In saying that I doubt, even given the worst case scenario, the "socialism" you refer to will be destroyed, at least if it did, it would take alot more than that down with it. I will refrain from commenting more, simply because I haven't been paying as much attention to the situation as I probably should be.

[Sam Spade]

In saying that I doubt, even given the worst case scenario, the "socialism" you refer to will be destroyed, at least if it did, it would take alot more than that down with it.

Well, in that it would be destroyed, something else would certainly replace it, although that might take some time.

And of course, a lot more would be taken down than just those "nets" - don't disagree there one bit.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

In saying that I doubt, even given the worst case scenario, the "socialism" you refer to will be destroyed, at least if it did, it would take alot more than that down with it.

Well, in that it would be destroyed, something else would certainly replace it, although that might take some time.

And of course, a lot more would be taken down than just those "nets" - don't disagree there one bit.

On #1: Yes, certainly. But I doubt whatever it is, it would be American-style "capitalism" in the pure sense that is recognizable to Americans - though no European at present at least of any intelligence considers themselves living in anything other than a "capitalist society". There is simply too much history, culture, social values, etc against that.

#2: Well that's pretty obvious here. Remember the countries we talking about. (I should add when I writing this I'm mainly - though not exclusively - thinking of France).

[Beet]

The problem is that 'socialism', however one uses the term, can only be used to describe policies in one country; Fantsystan can be socialist, or have socialistic policies. Fantasystan can be capitalist, or have capitalistic policies (or lack thereof). But the world as a whole can only be capitalist; not because the people of the world have decided collectively to enact a certain balance of market and government but because there is no world government. And little to no inclination to move toward it.

Thus Fantasystan can provide for a minimum wage, job guarantees, high taxes, a social safety net, and such and such and such, but it cannot set a minimum wage for the world, or regulate the markets in Imaginationstan. Imaginationstan can enact similar socialistic or capitalistic policies, but provided the standard of living is lower and it has sufficient infrastructure, Imaginationstan can always undercut Fantasystan.

The world only has a set amount of natural resources, and they become relatively scarcer when being competed for by both Fantasystan and Imaginationstan than they were when only Fantasystan was in the running.

Fantasystan is a 'developed' country. The process of development begins in the 'basic sciences', and then moves through 'invention', which become products through 'innovation', and these products are widely dissemenated through 'industrialization'. Having experienced these process for several centuries, the residents of both Fantasystan and Imaginationstan, but especially Fantasystan, come to expect ever rising standards of living. The standards of living become quantified through a market price. A certain percentage growth is expected in this market price every year, and when it does not grow, it is considered to be abnormal. But this whole process depends on continued basic science of the type which yields to the process of invention, innovation and dissemination in a useful manner. As any basic researcher will tell you, the process of basic science is highly unpredictable.

If the real cost of energy resources and other natural resources, for example, continues to rise through scarcity, without an offsetting decrease in costs brought about by scientific discovery, or better organization, there is downward pressure on living standards.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does there need to be world government for "socialism" (however you define it) - couldn't one say that for "capitalism" (however you define it) as well? Perhaps not, the USSR and the USA occasionally cut economic deals after all

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are all those "socialist" policies? In reality, or State welfarist? or paternalist? or various other imaginary "ists" that could be invented but our only staid words? No "Socialist" state ever won the people; except perhaps China during the Cultural Revolution and a couple of the 3rd World Socialist uprisings - and the leaders then were insane. The problem is that people want to force their will upon others; perhaps what is more desirable is some form of communitarian "drop-out" (but non-hippie-ish, please) society. In the Socialist-Capitalist dictonomy the "socialist" state must force things to happen - like welfare services, etc which wouldn't happen in a "capitalist order" - implying to some extent the capitalist order is the nature of things without the interfering state. But in reality, I don't believe that to be case.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why speak of nation states? Why speak of scarce resources? Resources are only scarce relative to our wants and needs. Perhaps my quest is more metaphysical, against certain aspects of human behaviour - "natural" or "socially constructed" it doesn't matter too much, it's probably a bit of both - that have brought this particularly unreal and maddening worldview. Medieval Monks had more sense, well when they weren't paying for personal concubines anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Completly arbitrary categories, the best thing to ask is why do we want we don't need?. Often it is for social goals or "benevolent (ha!) egotism". The people who got us into this economic mess were very driven (unlike me), very talented, fairly intelligent at least relative to what they were doing... but they were driven by desires, not rationality. What sort of person wants a CEO salary anyway? Isn't that the root and cause of this mess?

Your emphasis on competition is maddening too; perhaps it is proof that macroeconomics creates reality, rather than describing it (which it patently does not - and don't get me into that "individualist conservative morality designed as social Science (with a big S)" that is the Austrian School. What japes!)

[opebo]

SS you're making a mountain out of a molehill - at least in the US the 'social saftey net' is both very negligable and mostly gone already.  Its really just a window dressing - but a quite transparent one.  To beat a dead horse: rose coloured glasses.

[Beet]

Does there need to be world government for "socialism" (however you define it) - couldn't one say that for "capitalism" (however you define it) as well? Perhaps not, the USSR and the USA occasionally cut economic deals after all

I suppose you're right. But in that case, get yourself to 700 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20431 and you'll be set.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, they're not really socialist. The definition of socialism is when the state owns the means of production. In so far as Social Security is a transfer scheme and does not actually produce anything, it is not really socialist. Education, on the other hand... But there is some subjectivity in these labels, so I was merely following the diction of the current thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why, h'aint you ever heard of greed? Those wonderful Medieval Monks would cast off their frocks and run, not walk, to the 21st century if they could.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What sort of person wants a CEO salary? Yes, that's the root of the current mess.. and the root of all civilization.

Let me put one interpretation out there. The following is only an interpretation. We should mourn, that in the 21st century, limited natural resources and environmental degredation, combined with the decelerration of economically useful science, will--may gradually lead to a decline in human civilization after a more than 10,000 year advance. It is truly a tragic inflection point to be at, and there is a good chance that distasteful son of privilege was leader of the world, and these corrupt Wall Street insiders were those to enjoy the most of what the world had to offer, at what may be Western-- or human civilization's crowning moment of glory-- the last summer days when indefinite growth into the future seemed possible.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I guess, I guess... semantics are problem. I was to a more general form of "socialism" which meant "everything in common" (what a nightmare!) or something like that. It is a great tightrope walk, everyone falls down eventually.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Greed? I can't say I care much for him. Though I must say there is something much too flat of this view of humanity... not that it isn't true, for the most part though individuals are more various and stranger than that, but flat.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed. That is our problem, good we agree.

Now the next question is: why care about such tools?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Poetic and Beautiful. Much too poetic and beautiful to be true.

[Beet]

Greed? I can't say I care much for him. Though I must say there is something much too flat of this view of humanity... not that it isn't true, for the most part though individuals are more various and stranger than that, but flat.

Well true, it is. It is one view. A flat view to be sure, but one that nonetheless dominates many people's lives.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Beats me. All I'm saying is that people do care. That question is much like 'what is the meaning of life'?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We'll see.