Capitalism or Socialism: Which is better?

[The Black Forrest]

I don't think so. Some lazy people might try to take advantage, but it didn't make them lazy. Apathy is an attitude problem. If people see jobs as nothing but a way to get money, and only minimum wage jobs are available to them, they don't have much incentive. If jobs were instead seen as a means to be a valued member of a happy society, it'd be a lot more appealing.

How would you get them to view jobs in such a way? Alot of people would prefer not working to survive, especially if they get government hand-outs. Wouldn't it take some sort of propaganda to convince people they should love their jobs, even the low-income, minimum wage ones?

People fail to understand the retardation of hiring managers. Say you were an educated professional. Times suck and your company management are retards/crooks/thieves/whatever. You are laid off.

The problem with a minimum wage job is that it will work against you. The HM doesn't think "times were tough and you did what you had to do" They think there is something wrong with you because you couldn't find another comparable job.

Even long term unemployment will work against you for the same reasons. There are people that think your skills get stale if you are unemployed for a year or more.

Even now; there are many many HM's who think laid off people are bad options. It's best to hire away working people. Problem is the incentives are not what they used to be. Now it's "are you looking for a change"

[Mediterreania]

I have read many articles, opinions and threads regarding this topic over the years. Many like to paint ideal economies (among many other topics) in stark Black or White terms rather then the "shades of gray" they truly are. I wont go in-depth, but what I gather about both systems (broadly):

Capitalism:
Pros: Diverse product selection and wide range of services, ability to climb the socioeconomic ladder, promotes technological improvement, gives consumers more control over market
Cons: Lower-classes fall through cracks (homelessness), depletion of world's resources at alarming rate, promotes materialism and profit over human life

Socialism:
Pros: No social/economic inequality, everyone acquires their share of goods/services (no falling through cracks)
Cons: Economy tends to stagnate, less product/service choices, no ability to rise up economic ladder and achieve financial independence

Mixed:
Best of both worlds?

America could be considered a mixed economy, having a large welfare system while benefiting from a diverse capitalistic system where one can rise or fall on their own merits. Is the U.S. an ideal model for the "best" economic system?

I would like to hear from YOU (NationStates) on what you prefer through votes and responses.

Market mutualism. No state, no corporations.

[Maurepas]

Yes, but since I live in the real world, I see no reason to accept libertarian utopias any more than I would socialist.

Who said anything about utopia? I'm pretty sure I didn't. I'm not saying that monopolies won't happen, I'm saying that oppressive monopolies CAN'T happen in a capitalist system.

Andrew Carnegie disagrees.

[The Black Forrest]

Market mutualism. No state, no corporations.

Been watching Deadwood?

Not sure that can work with the amount of people today and the way we can get around.

If there was a little isolation, sure......

[Nerditopia]

Socialism all the way
I think people should be able to own businesses and find their own jobs, but everyone with a job gets paid about the same. those without jobs get some benefits but not much.
I think it is ridiculous that there are people starving on the street while others make billions of dollars and spend it on ridiculous luxuries. I think that skilled jobs should get paid more, but only a little bit more.
When I rule the world, this is what it will be like

[Auremena]

Socialism:
Cons:no ability to rise up economic ladder

No need to, as you can't go down either.

[JJ Place]

Capitalism of course, it's the most efficient , most productive , and best economic system. The one down - side to Capitalism that many point to remains that creates massive inequalities , making some say that Capitalism is a worse economic system for that; however, inequalities are not bad at all; without Capitalism , all people would all have far less than with Capitalism , from the poorest of the poor to the richest of the rich, everyone has more money , a greater amount of material goods, and a higher quality of life because of Capitalism , and , thus , despite massive inequalities in wealth of varying economic - classes , Capitalism is still far better than Socialism.

[Servantium]

Who said anything about utopia? I'm pretty sure I didn't. I'm not saying that monopolies won't happen, I'm saying that oppressive monopolies CAN'T happen in a capitalist system.

Andrew Carnegie disagrees.

Your point? U.S. Steel is not an example of an aggressive monopoly formed in a capitalist system.

[JJ Place]

Socialism:
Cons:no ability to rise up economic ladder

No need to, as you can't go down either.

There's little way down from abject poverty , even if everyone else is abjecting in poverty with yourself.

[Maurepas]

Andrew Carnegie disagrees.

Your point? U.S. Steel is not an example of an aggressive monopoly formed in a capitalist system.

Yes, yes it is. It's the tenth largest Steel producer in the world today, after, the mass reduction in US steel output. When Carnegie was in charge it owned nearly 70% of the US steel market. 70%.

[Auremena]

No need to, as you can't go down either.

There's little way down from abject poverty , even if everyone else is abjecting in poverty with yourself.

It's not poverty if you have what you need.

[Terishany]

Capitalism

[Maurepas]

There's little way down from abject poverty , even if everyone else is abjecting in poverty with yourself.

It's not poverty if you have what you need.

Yeah, that's the trick ain't it? It's hard to get what you need in such a system, ask the Ukraine, they'll tell you.

[Auremena]

It's not poverty if you have what you need.

Yeah, that's the trick ain't it? It's hard to get what you need in such a system, ask the Ukraine, they'll tell you.

That's the Ukraine, and that's not how socialism is supposed to work.

[Maurepas]

Yeah, that's the trick ain't it? It's hard to get what you need in such a system, ask the Ukraine, they'll tell you.

That's the Ukraine, and that's not how socialism is supposed to work.

Yeah, that's what you say, but the Gilded Age United States isn't how capitalism is supposed to work. In real life, things don't work the way they're supposed to.

[Allrule]

Mixed economy with some socialist leanings.

[JJ Place]

There's little way down from abject poverty , even if everyone else is abjecting in poverty with yourself.

It's not poverty if you have what you need.

Even though you still have less than you would if you lived in a society mainly of Capitalism?


If an economic system meets all of your needs, It's still abject poverty compared to a society in which an economic system can allow you to meet many of your wants as well ; and Capitalism does just that for individuals.


Also, it's an incredibly high degree of poverty if a person ' s needs are not met, something Socialism periodically has trouble with.

[Hassett]

Anarcho-Capitalism.

[Servantium]

Your point? U.S. Steel is not an example of an aggressive monopoly formed in a capitalist system.

Yes, yes it is. It's the tenth largest Steel producer in the world today, after, the mass reduction in US steel output. When Carnegie was in charge it owned nearly 70% of the US steel market. 70%.

U.S. Steel's monopoly status is a direct result of government intervention in the economy. Therefore it is not an example of a capitalistic monopoly.

[Auremena]

It's not poverty if you have what you need.

Even though you still have less than you would if you lived in a society mainly of Capitalism?
If an economic system meets all of your needs, It's still abject poverty compared to a society in which an economic system can allow you to meet many of your wants as well ; and Capitalism does just that for individuals.
Also, it's an incredibly high degree of poverty if a person ' s needs are not met, something Socialism periodically has trouble with.

Not just my needs, but what about others? I care about other people. I don't want them out in the street. I could care less right now, I'd prefer to be out on the street. I'd be no better off there than I am right now.

[Maurepas]

Yes, yes it is. It's the tenth largest Steel producer in the world today, after, the mass reduction in US steel output. When Carnegie was in charge it owned nearly 70% of the US steel market. 70%.

U.S. Steel's monopoly status is a direct result of government intervention in the economy. Therefore it is not an example of a capitalistic monopoly.

I call bullshit on that. Andrew Carnegie received no help from the US Government, in fact, said government went so far as to bring an Anti-Trust suit against him.

[Gothic Space Empire]

How would you get them to view jobs in such a way? A lot of people would prefer not working to survive, especially if they get government hand-outs. Wouldn't it take some sort of propaganda to convince people they should love their jobs, even the low-income, minimum wage ones?

It's not about making them love the way things currently are, it's about the need for other people to value them. Self-esteem is a powerful motivator. "Other people" includes managers, customers and people they meet. And it's not so much of a stretch - after all if no-one wanted the service the minimum-wager provides, the job wouldn't exist.

[Vlakkshrund]

Personally, I would go with straight Socialism. NO NATION, has actually used true Socialism. Added with Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto theory, everyone would be peaceful, no one would be left out because everyone is EQUAL. Now I will bring out problems for the mixed economy, and the savage Capitalism. Capitalism is easily prounouned as this, "Save every rich and powerful man, so we can save this country called America!", yeah bullshit, that's what it is. No politician or whoever really is in the politics give a shit about the poor, it's because the people consider it an issue. If it was NOT an issue we wouldn't know what welfare even means. It surprises me people still walk towards Capitalism.

[Servantium]

U.S. Steel's monopoly status is a direct result of government intervention in the economy. Therefore it is not an example of a capitalistic monopoly.

I call bullshit on that. Andrew Carnegie received no help from the US Government, in fact, said government went so far as to bring an Anti-Trust suit against him.

I didn't say they helped him directly. I said that his monopoly is a direct result of interventionism.

I'm currently searching for literature to substantiate this claim, but I'm working with dial-up internet, so things are slow.

[Caelestius]

How would you get them to view jobs in such a way? Alot of people would prefer not working to survive, especially if they get government hand-outs. Wouldn't it take some sort of propaganda to convince people they should love their jobs, even the low-income, minimum wage ones?

People fail to understand the retardation of hiring managers. Say you were an educated professional. Times suck and your company management are retards/crooks/thieves/whatever. You are laid off.

The problem with a minimum wage job is that it will work against you. The HM doesn't think "times were tough and you did what you had to do" They think there is something wrong with you because you couldn't find another comparable job.

Even long term unemployment will work against you for the same reasons. There are people that think your skills get stale if you are unemployed for a year or more.

Even now; there are many many HM's who think laid off people are bad options. It's best to hire away working people. Problem is the incentives are not what they used to be. Now it's "are you looking for a change"

I suppose this would be one of the Cons of capitalism. But not hiring managers?

Do you suggest a worker-owned cooperative, where each employee has equal shares in the corporation so that they govern themselves and where they want the company to go?

It's not about making them love the way things currently are, it's about the need for other people to value them. Self-esteem is a powerful motivator. "Other people" includes managers, customers and people they meet. And it's not so much of a stretch - after all if no-one wanted the service the minimum-wager provides, the job wouldn't exist.

So if society values that employee's service to them, they would be happier with their minimum-wage job? I think I understand your premise, but you must admit, it would be hard to convince someone to enjoy say: cleaning dirty toilets or cooking greasy burgers in a noisy, crowded fast-food joint.

I personally did some of those things and learned valuable lessons from it: Such as go to college and find a well-paying job that I enjoy.

Personally, I would go with straight Socialism. NO NATION, has actually used true Socialism. Added with Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto theory, everyone would be peaceful, no one would be left out because everyone is EQUAL. Now I will bring out problems for the mixed economy, and the savage Capitalism. Capitalism is easily prounouned as this, "Save every rich and powerful man, so we can save this country called America!", yeah bullshit, that's what it is. No politician or whoever really is in the politics give a shit about the poor, it's because the people consider it an issue. If it was NOT an issue we wouldn't know what welfare even means. It surprises me people still walk towards Capitalism.

I agree in part, its always been about the rich being in control. But how would taking away Capitalism help empower the poor? Capitalism itself offers the opportunity to advance through the socioeconomic ladder so you can gain financial independence. Under Socialism, you are forced to a fixed standard of living, still slaves to the leaders above us (who will still be richer most likely).