Socialism v.s. Capitalism - Which one is better and why?

[Cisairse]

Some abuses? Propaganda?

Would you set yourself on fire because of "some abuses"?

Don't be a revisionist if you're going to make claims about what "history says."

My wife and her family were there. If you get your information from liberal-authored textbooks, of course you will be blind to reality.

Did "liberal-authored textbooks" doctor the extensive photographic documentation we have of what happened in South Vietnam during the war?

Also, why would liberals — who are, by definition, supporters of free market capitalism and individual liberty — want to defame the free market South Vietnam and support the Marxist–Leninist state of North Vietnam? That doesn't make any sense.

[Esteptanskia]

My wife and her family were there. If you get your information from liberal-authored textbooks, of course you will be blind to reality.

Did "liberal-authored textbooks" doctor the extensive photographic documentation we have of what happened in South Vietnam during the war?

Also, why would liberals — who are, by definition, supporters of free market capitalism and individual liberty — want to defame the free market South Vietnam and support the Marxist–Leninist state of North Vietnam? That doesn't make any sense.

Yes, a few pictures of a few incidents. Does a few pictures of gun crime in America mean that everyone in America is murdered? Like I said, there were a few incidents and a few abuses, but it was NOTHING compared to what came later when socialism arrived.

And you are talking about classical liberals which is not what modern liberals are.

[Cisairse]

Did "liberal-authored textbooks" doctor the extensive photographic documentation we have of what happened in South Vietnam during the war?

Also, why would liberals — who are, by definition, supporters of free market capitalism and individual liberty — want to defame the free market South Vietnam and support the Marxist–Leninist state of North Vietnam? That doesn't make any sense.

Yes, a few pictures of a few incidents. Does a few pictures of gun crime in America mean that everyone in America is murdered? Like I said, there were a few incidents and a few abuses, but it was NOTHING compared to what came later when socialism arrived.

Thirty-one people in South Vietnam committed acts of self-immolation in direct protest of the tyrannical administration of Ngô Đình Diệm. Thirty-one. That is equal to all previously known incidents of self-immolation in world history combined, then multiplied by 4.

If you believe people would literally kill themselves to make statements against what they considered to be human rights abuses against them for anything less than actual legitimate human rights abuses, I'm not sure what to tell you.

To answer your question directly, yes, people committing acts of self-immolation in America (which about five people did, during the Vietnam War) means that America is committing abuses of human rights.

And you are talking about classical liberals which is not what modern liberals are.

Social liberals and neoliberals share most economic views with classical liberals. That's why they're called "liberals" and not something else. If they didn't believe in liberalism, which is an ideology in favor of free markets and opposing state control of industry, they wouldn't call themselves liberals.

[Esteptanskia]

Yes, a few pictures of a few incidents. Does a few pictures of gun crime in America mean that everyone in America is murdered? Like I said, there were a few incidents and a few abuses, but it was NOTHING compared to what came later when socialism arrived.

Thirty-one people in South Vietnam committed acts of self-immolation in direct protest of the tyrannical administration of Ngô Đình Diệm. Thirty-one. That is equal to all previously known incidents of self-immolation in world history combined, then multiplied by 4.

If you believe people would literally kill themselves to make statements against what they considered to be human rights abuses against them for anything less than actual legitimate human rights abuses, I'm not sure what to tell you.

To answer your question directly, yes, people committing acts of self-immolation in America (which about five people did, during the Vietnam War) means that America is committing abuses of human rights.

And you are talking about classical liberals which is not what modern liberals are.

Social liberals and neoliberals share most economic views with classical liberals. That's why they're called "liberals" and not something else. If they didn't believe in liberalism, which is an ideology in favor of free markets and opposing state control of industry, they wouldn't call themselves liberals.

Yeah, because 31 lunatics means that a country of millions is suffering. Face it, you have nothing. My wife and her family were actually there and are much better qualified than any liberal propaganda author or sensationalist journalist looking to make it big with crackerjack stories.

[Cisairse]

Thirty-one people in South Vietnam committed acts of self-immolation in direct protest of the tyrannical administration of Ngô Đình Diệm. Thirty-one. That is equal to all previously known incidents of self-immolation in world history combined, then multiplied by 4.

If you believe people would literally kill themselves to make statements against what they considered to be human rights abuses against them for anything less than actual legitimate human rights abuses, I'm not sure what to tell you.

To answer your question directly, yes, people committing acts of self-immolation in America (which about five people did, during the Vietnam War) means that America is committing abuses of human rights.



Social liberals and neoliberals share most economic views with classical liberals. That's why they're called "liberals" and not something else. If they didn't believe in liberalism, which is an ideology in favor of free markets and opposing state control of industry, they wouldn't call themselves liberals.

Yeah, because 31 lunatics means that a country of millions is suffering. Face it, you have nothing. My wife and her family were actually there and are much better qualified than any liberal propaganda author or sensationalist journalist looking to make it big with crackerjack stories.

I was refuting your claim that history favors an economic system when it comes to tyranny. If you believe that you are more qualified than actual historical facts to make claims about historical facts, well, I cannot help you.

To bring this conversation a little broader, there have been authoritarian tyrannical states of pretty much every economic ideology. The body count for capitalism is much higher than the body count for socialism. Does this mean that socialism is inherently more peaceful than capitalism? No. Does this mean that capitalism is inherently tyrannical? Also no. Economic systems don't have to-do lists for how to structure political systems.

Now, you would be correct to say that Marxism–Leninism (the polito-economic system employed by the late Soviet Union, as well as its client states in [North] Vietnam, Cuba, etc.) is oppressive and tyrannical, and you would be 100% correct. However, Marxism–Leninism, which is both a political and economic system, is not synonymous with socialism, just like fascism is not synonymous with capitalism. What would you reaction be if I claimed that capitalism is equal to tyranny because of the Holocaust, which was committed by a country which featured markets? The horrors of African colonialism, such as the Congo genocide committed by the Belgians, were also explicitly done in the name of capitalism by capitalist societies. The institutions of chattel slavery, which are about as tyrannical as you can get without getting into more esoteric stuff like human captive breeding, were explicitly upheld to support capitalism and market structures.

Would I be justified in saying that capitalism = tyranny, then? By your logic, yes, absolutely. I have a feeling you'll disagree with me, though.

[Esteptanskia]

Yeah, because 31 lunatics means that a country of millions is suffering. Face it, you have nothing. My wife and her family were actually there and are much better qualified than any liberal propaganda author or sensationalist journalist looking to make it big with crackerjack stories.

I was refuting your claim that history favors an economic system when it comes to tyranny. If you believe that you are more qualified than actual historical facts to make claims about historical facts. well, I cannot help you.

To bring this conversation a little broader, there have been authoritarian tyrannical states of pretty much every economic ideology. The body count for capitalism is much higher than the body count for socialism. Does this mean that socialism is inherently more peaceful than capitalism? No. Does this mean that capitalism is inherently tyrannical? Also no. Economic systems don't have to-do lists for how to structure political systems.

Now, you would be correct to say that Marxism–Leninism (the polito-economic system employed by the late Soviet Union, as well as its client states in [North] Vietnam, Cuba, etc.) is oppressive and tyrannical, and you would be 100% correct. However, Marxism–Leninism, which is both a political and economic system, is not synonymous with socialism, just like fascism is not synonymous with capitalism. What would you reaction be if I claimed that capitalism is equal to tyranny because of the Holocaust, which was committed by a country which featured markets? The horrors of African colonialism, such as the Congo genocide committed by the Belgians, were also explicitly done in the name of capitalism by capitalist societies. The institutions of chattel slavery, which are about as tyrannical as you can get without getting into more esoteric stuff like human captive breeding, were explicitly upheld to support capitalism and market structures.

Would I be justified in saying that capitalism = tyranny, then? By your logic, yes, absolutely. I have a feeling you'll disagree with me, though.

Yes, a capitalist state can be somewhat tyrannical, but it is not inherent. Unlike capitalism which is purely an economic system, socialism is also a political system that relies on tyranny to operate.

[Cisairse]

I was refuting your claim that history favors an economic system when it comes to tyranny. If you believe that you are more qualified than actual historical facts to make claims about historical facts. well, I cannot help you.

To bring this conversation a little broader, there have been authoritarian tyrannical states of pretty much every economic ideology. The body count for capitalism is much higher than the body count for socialism. Does this mean that socialism is inherently more peaceful than capitalism? No. Does this mean that capitalism is inherently tyrannical? Also no. Economic systems don't have to-do lists for how to structure political systems.

Now, you would be correct to say that Marxism–Leninism (the polito-economic system employed by the late Soviet Union, as well as its client states in [North] Vietnam, Cuba, etc.) is oppressive and tyrannical, and you would be 100% correct. However, Marxism–Leninism, which is both a political and economic system, is not synonymous with socialism, just like fascism is not synonymous with capitalism. What would you reaction be if I claimed that capitalism is equal to tyranny because of the Holocaust, which was committed by a country which featured markets? The horrors of African colonialism, such as the Congo genocide committed by the Belgians, were also explicitly done in the name of capitalism by capitalist societies. The institutions of chattel slavery, which are about as tyrannical as you can get without getting into more esoteric stuff like human captive breeding, were explicitly upheld to support capitalism and market structures.

Would I be justified in saying that capitalism = tyranny, then? By your logic, yes, absolutely. I have a feeling you'll disagree with me, though.

Yes, a capitalist state can be somewhat tyrannical, but it is not inherent. Socialism is also a political system that relies on tyranny to operate.

Socialism is not a political system. I restate my previous post: You will be proven wrong when you read the definition of socialism in a dictionary, encyclopedia, or on the internet.

[Esteptanskia]

Yes, a capitalist state can be somewhat tyrannical, but it is not inherent. Socialism is also a political system that relies on tyranny to operate.

Socialism is not a political system. I restate my previous post: You will be proven wrong when you read the definition of socialism in a dictionary, encyclopedia, or on the internet.

Yeah, because the internet is an amazing and infallible source

I am starting to remember why I left NS in the first place. It's next to impossible to find someone capable of making an intelligent argument.

[Debate Proxy 1]

Well, people are different, they have different ideas about how they want to live. Perhaps if people could learn to move past attempting to impose their wills and systems upon the unwilling, there would be a lot less violence in the world.

There are a few kinds of socialism that are peaceful, just people wishing to withdraw from the world and live in a commune. The fighting, which does humanity no good, really begins when socialist groups try to impose their will on other people who want no part of it. Same thing with the unwilling absorption of people into capitalism.

[Cisairse]

Socialism is not a political system. I restate my previous post: You will be proven wrong when you read the definition of socialism in a dictionary, encyclopedia, or on the internet.

Yeah, because the internet is an amazing and infallible source

I am starting to remember why I left NS in the first place. It's next to impossible to find someone capable of making an intelligent argument.

You say that, but so far your entire argument (which, I may note, contradicts basic facts about the subject we're debating) has been "My family says so" with no other substantiation.

If you are going to continue to claim that common knowledge definitions of words are wrong and then not attempt to support your position with verifiable facts, I will continue to dismiss you without sources.

[Esteptanskia]

Yeah, because the internet is an amazing and infallible source

I am starting to remember why I left NS in the first place. It's next to impossible to find someone capable of making an intelligent argument.

You say that, but so far your entire argument (which, I may note, contradicts basic facts about the subject we're debating) has been "My family says so" with no other substantiation.

If you are going to continue to claim that common knowledge definitions of words are wrong and then not attempt to support your position with verifiable facts, I will continue to dismiss you without sources.

Your sources are just propaganda.

[Cisairse]

You say that, but so far your entire argument (which, I may note, contradicts basic facts about the subject we're debating) has been "My family says so" with no other substantiation.

If you are going to continue to claim that common knowledge definitions of words are wrong and then not attempt to support your position with verifiable facts, I will continue to dismiss you without sources.

Your sources are just propaganda.

The dictionary is propaganda?

[Estanglia]

Socialism is not a political system. I restate my previous post: You will be proven wrong when you read the definition of socialism in a dictionary, encyclopedia, or on the internet.

Yeah, because the internet is an amazing and infallible source

I am starting to remember why I left NS in the first place. It's next to impossible to find someone capable of making an intelligent argument.

From someone who dismisses sources as "propaganda" and has this strange idea that pro-capitalism people would demonise a capitalist state.

If you're genuinely looking for an intelligent argument, tactics like "all your sources are propaganda" and "my anecdote is more correct than the sources from people who spent quite a lot of time researching this stuff" won't help you.

[Fahran]

From someone who dismisses sources as "propaganda" and has this strange idea that pro-capitalism people would demonise a capitalist state.

A lot of sources regarding the Vietnam War, both in favor of and opposed to it, can be read as propaganda when the broader context is acknowledged and many of the most ardent anti-war protestors had communist sympathies at the time. We also had actual reporting in the Vietnam War, which makes it different from all previous wars that we fought. We didn't show atrocities or casualties against the Germans or Japanese in the same light in World War II for instance.

If you're genuinely looking for an intelligent argument, tactics like "all your sources are propaganda" and "my anecdote is more correct than the sources from people who spent quite a lot of time researching this stuff" won't help you.

While I do not agree with our colleague's argument here, I do want to stress that we had and have no genuine way of measuring what the opinions of the Vietnamese population were during the Vietnam War beyond broad statements about particular demographic groups. We know for instance that a lot of Buddhists opposed both governments that were in place, that Catholics tended to favor the South Vietnamese, etc. We also know that both sides committed some pretty brutal massacres of dissidents. We can expect the NVA to have systematically purged and reeducated hundreds of thousands of people given what they did at Hue - where over 4,000 people were killed or disappeared in under a month.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

The problem is, we contest the same electoral seats and no one is happy. The best way to secure the advantages of capitalism together with the advantages of socialism, without the bureaucratic middleman getting in the way, is to just have different groups of voters no longer contesting the same elections, and no longer living under the other party's rules, and then both factions can have their cake and eat it.

The status quo can't be maintained; if the poor and the middle class keep fighting each other, no one will get what they want, nor have a chance to prove their way works, or to amend their opinions where personal experience of their own policies teaches them otherwise.

Separate voters who support the Communist system from those who support the bourgeoisie? This is a man-made division, and the position of the ruler is more stable.In the same way, the middle class is a nonexistent class created by people.Separate the slightly wealthier from the poorer.In fact, it did not change the nature of their proletariat.When groups are more carefully labeled, they forget what they were oppressed by. Then, no one has the concept of proletariat. In fact, whether it is the people at the bottom, LGBT, feminism or black rights, it is essentially the resistance of the oppressed. Divide and rule, a political means with a long history.
Everyone will fight for their own small cake, and the biggest cake will always be in the hands of the capitalists.

[Slavakino]

One-Party Socialist Gov with Mixed Economy

[Debate Proxy 1]

The problem is, we contest the same electoral seats and no one is happy. The best way to secure the advantages of capitalism together with the advantages of socialism, without the bureaucratic middleman getting in the way, is to just have different groups of voters no longer contesting the same elections, and no longer living under the other party's rules, and then both factions can have their cake and eat it.

The status quo can't be maintained; if the poor and the middle class keep fighting each other, no one will get what they want, nor have a chance to prove their way works, or to amend their opinions where personal experience of their own policies teaches them otherwise.

Separate voters who support the Communist system from those who support the bourgeoisie? This is a man-made division, and the position of the ruler is more stable.In the same way, the middle class is a nonexistent class created by people.Separate the slightly wealthier from the poorer.In fact, it did not change the nature of their proletariat.When groups are more carefully labeled, they forget what they were oppressed by. Then, no one has the concept of proletariat. In fact, whether it is the people at the bottom, LGBT, feminism or black rights, it is essentially the resistance of the oppressed. Divide and rule, a political means with a long history.
Everyone will fight for their own small cake, and the biggest cake will always be in the hands of the capitalists.

It's the only thing that could really bring peace between pro-capitalist and pro-communist voters. If capitalism really is exploitative, then why can't workers who don't agree with living under it just have a mass walkout and vote with their feet for socialism? By Marx's logic, having no involuntary workers would end capitalist exploitation immediately.

The middle class is not nonexistent: Marx called it the petit-bourgeoisie.

Trust me... setting live examples will either prove socialism can work to a lot of naysayers, or it will turn everyone into convinced capitalists.

Besides, didn't Kim Il Sung say something similar once about "one country, two systems" being the only realistic peace proposal between populations that believe differently?

It's the only way that us middle-classers, with all our weapons, and the Marxist proletariat, whom I am assuming would also arm as a class, could unite against the real enemy: the monopoly cronies in charge of the government.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Separate voters who support the Communist system from those who support the bourgeoisie? This is a man-made division, and the position of the ruler is more stable.In the same way, the middle class is a nonexistent class created by people.Separate the slightly wealthier from the poorer.In fact, it did not change the nature of their proletariat.When groups are more carefully labeled, they forget what they were oppressed by. Then, no one has the concept of proletariat. In fact, whether it is the people at the bottom, LGBT, feminism or black rights, it is essentially the resistance of the oppressed. Divide and rule, a political means with a long history.
Everyone will fight for their own small cake, and the biggest cake will always be in the hands of the capitalists.

It's the only thing that could really bring peace between pro-capitalist and pro-communist voters. If capitalism really is exploitative, then why can't workers who don't agree with living under it just have a mass walkout and vote with their feet for socialism? By Marx's logic, having no involuntary workers would end capitalist exploitation immediately.

The middle class is not nonexistent: Marx called it the petit-bourgeoisie.

Trust me... setting live examples will either prove socialism can work to a lot of naysayers, or it will turn everyone into convinced capitalists.

Besides, didn't Kim Il Sung say something similar once about "one country, two systems" being the only realistic peace proposal between populations that believe differently?

It's the only way that us middle-classers, with all our weapons, and the Marxist proletariat, whom I am assuming would also arm as a class, could unite against the real enemy: the monopoly cronies in charge of the government.

I don't think it's possible to keep people together by throwing them under two systems.It's like building two worlds in one country.The only difference is that the Berlin Wall is invisible.Emphasizing differences only leads to division. You need to emphasize the commonness of people to promote unity.That's why identity politics brings chaos.

[Luziyca]

Preferably, a mixture of the two: the big things that are critical to the national well-being should be run by the government, and the rest shouldn't.

Steel industry?

Nationalize it.

Personally, telecommunications should be sorta nationalized, as in have one state-run enterprise (like SaskTel in my province, despite Moe's efforts to sell it off), but also allow private competition in the field.

[Kedri]

Neither. Georgism all the way.

[Servilis]

I've never ever liked the Free Market, which caused me to go from being a State Capitalist to a full-blown Lefty, to going so far as to make my own variant of Socialism, Yeossism.

Point is, when the economy is based on how well the Free Market performs, it's kind of dangerous, and very risky, nonetheless, Privatization may be efficient, but it's not ethical in my opinion.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Imagine being a factory worker living in the mid to late 19th century, dying at a young age, watching people die of preventable workplace accidents, seeing not just men, but women and children, working 14 hours a day, 6 days a week in horrid conditions for absolutely shit pay, and when you decide to unionize yourself and your coworkers, all of you get shot because the “captain of industry” who owns the factory hired a bunch of goons to gun you down. You die because you spoke against abuses. And then over a century later, you’re forced to live as a ghostly spirit and you hear people claiming that capitalism is all about freedom.

[Debate Proxy 1]

It's the only thing that could really bring peace between pro-capitalist and pro-communist voters. If capitalism really is exploitative, then why can't workers who don't agree with living under it just have a mass walkout and vote with their feet for socialism? By Marx's logic, having no involuntary workers would end capitalist exploitation immediately.

The middle class is not nonexistent: Marx called it the petit-bourgeoisie.

Trust me... setting live examples will either prove socialism can work to a lot of naysayers, or it will turn everyone into convinced capitalists.

Besides, didn't Kim Il Sung say something similar once about "one country, two systems" being the only realistic peace proposal between populations that believe differently?

It's the only way that us middle-classers, with all our weapons, and the Marxist proletariat, whom I am assuming would also arm as a class, could unite against the real enemy: the monopoly cronies in charge of the government.

I don't think it's possible to keep people together by throwing them under two systems.It's like building two worlds in one country.The only difference is that the Berlin Wall is invisible.Emphasizing differences only leads to division. You need to emphasize the commonness of people to promote unity.That's why identity politics brings chaos.

You can't emphasize commonness between people successfully if it comes from class divisions between proletarians and petit-bourgeoisie.

When the walls are in people's hearts, and in people's ideals, forcing them together can only be accomplished by one thing: a bureaucrat class. Workers disillusioned with capitalism need the right to leave it and live off the land, and workers who want to place their bets on the market need to be able to choose what they believe is right.

The empowerment of a bureaucrat class to dictate over the workers could not lead to any classless society. It will destroy the very theoretical goals of Marxism, the withering away of the state and the establishment of a classless, stateless society, just like the growth of a bureaucrat class did in the Soviet Union.

I dare not predict how people would react if they exerted freedom of movement to end class exploitation forever, whether they would stay in egalitarian commune mode or conduct private trades in the absence of state authority, once the classless, stateless society has been reached.

Even Marx was, later in life, of the opinion that Communism couldn't be extended beyond the population willing to accept it, without destroying all progress toward a classless society. All it would do, he maintained, is enshrine class antagonism between proletarian and pre-proletarian populations (it is hard to think of farmers as an exploitative class, especially if Paine's land reforms in Agrarian Justice were implemented and everyone could become self-reliant farmers) permanently. As long as people still agree to live under capitalism, it cannot be called exploitative; it is, then, no different than giving for free, except that the expectation of capitalism, in theory, is that you get something in return also.

Now, the possibility exists that new monopolies might develop among the rightists only if the rightist dissidents get their way. They might begin to centralize power and turn middle-class owners of small businesses, all the people who would willingly sign up for a capitalism freed of our present bureaucratic monopoly state, into proletarians, and transform believers of capitalism into the most fervent Communists. That would be the case if the leftist argument held true.

If the rightist one held true upon experimental observation, the armament of the working class and abolition of classes would be the trigger for "utopian capitalism," it might be called. Even the complete fulfillment of Marx's final stage of communism would simply revert to markets again. Fidel Castro referred to a very peculiar problem his country was facing, calling it "brain drain": the ability of rich countries to hire all the brightest brains out of the communist world and other Third World countries, with the imbalance of brains making the First World even richer. Something in the communist world lagged behind in technology and experimental freedom for scientists; if it can't be solved by the socialists, if the scientists can't be kept happy and Castro's dilemma be solved, then there would be no hope for socialism on its own ground.

I am deliberately leaving that an open question; it is true that not all versions of socialism have been tested (it is also true that not all versions of capitalism have been tested, and maybe some of those don't produce involuntary slavery to monopolies.) How would you solve Castro's brain drain dilemma?

[Dollystana]

I like socialism for a small group, but in a big country like the US it is impossible to share the wealth between 300000000 people. I support Swedish social democracy.

[Cisairse]

I like socialism for a small group, but in a big country like the US it is impossible to share the wealth between 300000000 people. I support Swedish social democracy.

What do you mean by "share the wealth?"