Capitalism or Socialism: Which is better?

[Mediterreania]

They can. However, they would quickly beat corporations and become a mutualist system if it wasn't for the state.

I don't think that is true persay, in the absence of the state we might see a greater amount of co-operatives but I don't think they would necessarily come to dominate, especially against say single proprietorships which are too easy to set up for them to be out-competed, still as I mentioned in my spiel, the biggest problem is starting a co-operative, you need enough like-minded people with enough disposable wealth, the right skills to work there and the ability to work without a profit for a long period. Comparatively corporations and single proprietorships are just easier, so even with increased risks from lack of state help most businesses will start privately owned, simply because it's easiest that way.

Yet in the early transition to anarchy, AKA the "revolution," workers will seize factories and the such from their owners. Example: Anarchist Catalonia. Few workers would accept wage labor over ownership. The economy would be made of cooperatives and freelancers, with the surviving corporations suffering from lack of currency, protection, and cheap labor.

[Servantium]

When he sayd capitalism he means free market capitalism. To many (possibly to a majority) of advocates, "capitalism" and "free market capitalism" mean the same thing.

And to advocates of anarchist mutualism, "free market capitalism" is an oxymoron. Corporations themselves are state creations, and would not exist in a truly "free" market.

...Your point? Corporations would still exist, they just wouldn't technically be called corporations because they wouldn't have all the legal crap that comes with registering as a corporation except maybe the ability to be sued.

[The Black Plains]

I don't think that is true persay, in the absence of the state we might see a greater amount of co-operatives but I don't think they would necessarily come to dominate, especially against say single proprietorships which are too easy to set up for them to be out-competed, still as I mentioned in my spiel, the biggest problem is starting a co-operative, you need enough like-minded people with enough disposable wealth, the right skills to work there and the ability to work without a profit for a long period. Comparatively corporations and single proprietorships are just easier, so even with increased risks from lack of state help most businesses will start privately owned, simply because it's easiest that way.

Yet in the early transition to anarchy, AKA the "revolution," workers will seize factories and the such from their owners. Example: Anarchist Catalonia. Few workers would accept wage labor over ownership. The economy would be made of cooperatives and freelancers, with the surviving corporations suffering from lack of currency, protection, and cheap labor.

That is awful. Your anarchy is AWFUL. Anarcho-syndicalism is AWFUL!

[Trotskylvania]

Yet in the early transition to anarchy, AKA the "revolution," workers will seize factories and the such from their owners. Example: Anarchist Catalonia. Few workers would accept wage labor over ownership. The economy would be made of cooperatives and freelancers, with the surviving corporations suffering from lack of currency, protection, and cheap labor.

That is awful. Your anarchy is AWFUL. Anarcho-syndicalism is AWFUL!

Brilliant argument chap.

At any rate, anarcho-syndicalism is the only mass-based anarchist philosophy to ever even come close to realizing its goals. 9 million workers of the CNT participated in one of the largest social revolutions in human history, successfully fended off the Falange and the treachery of the Stalinist dominated Republic for almost three years before finally falling.

[The Merchant Republics]

I don't think that is true persay, in the absence of the state we might see a greater amount of co-operatives but I don't think they would necessarily come to dominate, especially against say single proprietorships which are too easy to set up for them to be out-competed, still as I mentioned in my spiel, the biggest problem is starting a co-operative, you need enough like-minded people with enough disposable wealth, the right skills to work there and the ability to work without a profit for a long period. Comparatively corporations and single proprietorships are just easier, so even with increased risks from lack of state help most businesses will start privately owned, simply because it's easiest that way.

Yet in the early transition to anarchy, AKA the "revolution," workers will seize factories and the such from their owners. Example: Anarchist Catalonia. Few workers would accept wage labor over ownership. The economy would be made of cooperatives and freelancers, with the surviving corporations suffering from lack of currency, protection, and cheap labor.

I would be opposed to any sort of revolution seizing privately owned factories without reparations made to the owners. I don't think anarchy requires violent revolution or if it does then not necessarily violent usurpation of private production per say, I think that is more likely to cause problems in the long run.
Anyways, while I realize that many workers would not if the choice was obvious choose wage labour, the fact is that some would, it is reliable, particularly if one is not a very good worker, it's safe as bad as that sounds to let someone else simply pay you regardless of your overall performance or the market's trends.

My understanding was that Mutualist philosophy did not reject currency, (though I knew of it occurring in anarchist Catalonia), I must ask how you would intend to replace currency in any realistic way in a market system, any ways whatever substitute will eventually change enough hands to made into private investment. Protection again is not necessarily true, there are many examples of private property protection under anarchic conditions, cheap labour I grant you would be far less present in an anarchist environment particularly with a large amount of Co-ops, however as I showed above, some people would still be willing to work for less then what they would earn from owning their production for the stability of earning wages per hour of labour.

[Mediterreania]

Yet in the early transition to anarchy, AKA the "revolution," workers will seize factories and the such from their owners. Example: Anarchist Catalonia. Few workers would accept wage labor over ownership. The economy would be made of cooperatives and freelancers, with the surviving corporations suffering from lack of currency, protection, and cheap labor.

I would be opposed to any sort of revolution seizing privately owned factories without reparations made to the owners. I don't think anarchy requires violent revolution or if it does then not necessarily violent usurpation of private production per say, I think that is more likely to cause problems in the long run.
Anyways, while I realize that many workers would not if the choice was obvious choose wage labour, the fact is that some would, it is reliable, particularly if one is not a very good worker, it's safe as bad as that sounds to let someone else simply pay you regardless of your overall performance or the market's trends.

My understanding was that Mutualist philosophy did not reject currency, (though I knew of it occurring in anarchist Catalonia), I must ask how you would intend to replace currency in any realistic way in a market system, any ways whatever substitute will eventually change enough hands to made into private investment.

Ah, I worded that wrong. There would be no state-issued fiat currency, and no investment markets.

Protection again is not necessarily true, there are many examples of private property protection under anarchic conditions,

Yes, but there would be no "corporate law," no military, no riot police to break up protests.

cheap labour I grant you would be far less present in an anarchist environment particularly with a large amount of Co-ops, however as I showed above, some people would still be willing to work for less then what they would earn from owning their production for the stability of earning wages per hour of labour.

Maybe, but I still think that there will be far more who choose the co-ops.

[The Merchant Republics]

I would be opposed to any sort of revolution seizing privately owned factories without reparations made to the owners. I don't think anarchy requires violent revolution or if it does then not necessarily violent usurpation of private production per say, I think that is more likely to cause problems in the long run.
Anyways, while I realize that many workers would not if the choice was obvious choose wage labour, the fact is that some would, it is reliable, particularly if one is not a very good worker, it's safe as bad as that sounds to let someone else simply pay you regardless of your overall performance or the market's trends.

My understanding was that Mutualist philosophy did not reject currency, (though I knew of it occurring in anarchist Catalonia), I must ask how you would intend to replace currency in any realistic way in a market system, any ways whatever substitute will eventually change enough hands to made into private investment.

Ah, I worded that wrong. There would be no state-issued fiat currency, and no investment markets.

Well, I would be in favour of the elimination of state-fiat currency actually, though I'm certain you were aware that most Free Market proponents are.Though I disagree with having no investment markets, again I must say that is no necessarily true, it would be true if there were no corporations, but I don't see how it is necessarily true.

Protection again is not necessarily true, there are many examples of private property protection under anarchic conditions,

Yes, but there would be no "corporate law," no military, no riot police to break up protests.

Well, yes and no, a lack of state corporate law would mean again a greater difficulty in starting them, but corporate law would likely still live on in the same sense as any other common law legal frame work would. Lack of riot police and military will just mean no one is going to side with the bad corporations, I'm all in favour of that. However I don't imagine there would be too much to protest about, in the presence of competing cooperative firms there would be much more incentive to please wage labourers so that they don't go to work with the competition, especially considering the wage labour system doesn't necessarily reward productiveness, where a mutualist system does usually.

cheap labour I grant you would be far less present in an anarchist environment particularly with a large amount of Co-ops, however as I showed above, some people would still be willing to work for less then what they would earn from owning their production for the stability of earning wages per hour of labour.

Maybe, but I still think that there will be far more who choose the co-ops.

Which will likely drive up the price of wage labour, but it's total elimination will probably not be likely, as I mentioned, the issue of wage labour is that it doesn't reward productivity, the positive feature of that is that the less productive are better off working at wage labour, which would ensure a more stable income.

[Kaledoria]

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

Except, that most is not true. Lets make a simple model:
Capitalism: Everybody gets 100% of what he earns
Socialism: Everybody pays 50% of (what he earns minus the existence minimum), this is distributed among the poorest.

Diverse product selection: Rich guy makes lots of $ with his product. Some poor guy wants a share and switches into his market, paying all his money for the necessary initial costs (research, training workforces, material etc).
Capitalism: Rich guy drops his prices and makes no money for a month - but neither does poor guy. poor guy starves to death and rich guy increases his prices again.
Socialism: Rich guy is not so rich to drop his prices like that to begin with. Poor guy is kept alive by money distributed to him at least for some time. Overall the thread of the initial cost is not so big anyway and another poor guy might come just after the first one failed - in the end one poor guy will have entered the marked and made his share and the product selection has become bigger.

Ability to climb the socioeconomic ladder: Exactly not.
Model population: Rich guy. Makes 102$ per time unit. 10 Poor guys: Making randomly (equal distribution) 1- 3$ per time unit. Eating and living is 2 units. In time unit 100 poor guy #4 makes a sensational invention increasing his income to 100$ per time unit.
Socialism: The income tax from rich guy left him with 52$, the rest brought the poor guys to an average 7$. #4 makes his invention and now pays instead of receives but he is still at 51$, so he moved from average to good.
Capitalism: After about 2 time units, Poor guy #4 had to take a debt at rich guy to get $ to not starve. The interest is 30% because rich guy needs to make profit and poor guy needs to eat. With the interest, the next debt takes 2/1.3=1.54 month in average. Soon he needs to take additional debts just to pay the interest. By time unit 100 he has way more then 300$ debt and way more then 100$ interest to pay per time unit, so his invention changes nothing. He stays poor.

Economy tends to stagnate:
There is rich guy with 102$ again and 10 poor guys with 3$. ... At time unit 1. Now rich guy only pays 50$ for luxuries. (the 10 poor once all pay their money, cause people need 1$ of something besides survival or go crazy)
Capitalism: Now in the next step, only 52+ 10*3 = 82 $ were spend. Probably rich guy made about 60, the poor ones below 2. Now the rich guy sees: "Oh, my profit!" and fires poor guy #1 and 2 who happen to work for him and the poor make debts but that is not the point, with is, that rich guy will save money again, and the poor guys will no longer pay 3$ but only 2$ (because they save on anything not essential to survive in order not to make more debts)-
But still, in the end, there is lot less money in circulation then should := Economic stagnation.
Socialism: The money formally saved goes to the poor guys. Even if the rich guy cuts back a it on the luxuriates, the fact that the poor guys are willing to spend (most of) what they get means that there is money circulation, thus creation of values, overall: a strong economy.


Seriously, the only argument pro capitalism is, that in the socialist model, people unwilling or unable to contribute usefully to the society drag down the productive ones with them. In the capitalist model they are convinced to work or to die, respectively.
However, problem is, we life in an overproduction world already. If the "freeloaders" get social-sponsored food, this is not the food the others are suddenly missing, it's less food getting thrown away!

[Sibirsky]

And to advocates of anarchist mutualism, "free market capitalism" is an oxymoron. Corporations themselves are state creations, and would not exist in a truly "free" market.

In what sense?

A corporation is a legally recognized firm, true, but in the absence of legal recognition; groups of people investing their money in entrepreneurs in exchange for a share of future profits does not appear to be something which could not exist outside the state. A cooperative after all is essentially just a corporation where the shareholders are all workers in the business.

A contract. All you need. Since a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society would be a contractual society all you need is contracts.

Also, a free market can exist in a state. Protecting property rights is not economic intervention.

[Servantium]

Also, a free market can exist in a state. Protecting property rights is not economic intervention.

This.

[The Merchant Republics]

Also, a free market can exist in a state. Protecting property rights is not economic intervention.

This.

Well, yes, but that doesn't really contribute to a conversation about corporations with a Free Market Mutualist.

[Sibirsky]

Except, that most is not true. Lets make a simple model:
Capitalism: Everybody gets 100% of what he earns
Socialism: Everybody pays 50% of (what he earns minus the existence minimum), this is distributed among the poorest.

The poor in capitalist based economies make the middle class in socialist economies look poor.

Diverse product selection: Rich guy makes lots of $ with his product. Some poor guy wants a share and switches into his market, paying all his money for the necessary initial costs (research, training workforces, material etc).
Capitalism: Rich guy drops his prices and makes no money for a month - but neither does poor guy. poor guy starves to death and rich guy increases his prices again.
Socialism: Rich guy is not so rich to drop his prices like that to begin with. Poor guy is kept alive by money distributed to him at least for some time. Overall the thread of the initial cost is not so big anyway and another poor guy might come just after the first one failed - in the end one poor guy will have entered the marked and made his share and the product selection has become bigger.

In socialism, the rich guy does not control prices.

Ability to climb the socioeconomic ladder: Exactly not.
Model population: Rich guy. Makes 102$ per time unit. 10 Poor guys: Making randomly (equal distribution) 1- 3$ per time unit. Eating and living is 2 units. In time unit 100 poor guy #4 makes a sensational invention increasing his income to 100$ per time unit.
Socialism: The income tax from rich guy left him with 52$, the rest brought the poor guys to an average 7$. #4 makes his invention and now pays instead of receives but he is still at 51$, so he moved from average to good.
Capitalism: After about 2 time units, Poor guy #4 had to take a debt at rich guy to get $ to not starve. The interest is 30% because rich guy needs to make profit and poor guy needs to eat. With the interest, the next debt takes 2/1.3=1.54 month in average. Soon he needs to take additional debts just to pay the interest. By time unit 100 he has way more then 300$ debt and way more then 100$ interest to pay per time unit, so his invention changes nothing. He stays poor.

Economy tends to stagnate:
There is rich guy with 102$ again and 10 poor guys with 3$. ... At time unit 1. Now rich guy only pays 50$ for luxuries. (the 10 poor once all pay their money, cause people need 1$ of something besides survival or go crazy)
Capitalism: Now in the next step, only 52+ 10*3 = 82 $ were spend. Probably rich guy made about 60, the poor ones below 2. Now the rich guy sees: "Oh, my profit!" and fires poor guy #1 and 2 who happen to work for him and the poor make debts but that is not the point, with is, that rich guy will save money again, and the poor guys will no longer pay 3$ but only 2$ (because they save on anything not essential to survive in order not to make more debts)-
But still, in the end, there is lot less money in circulation then should := Economic stagnation.
Socialism: The money formally saved goes to the poor guys. Even if the rich guy cuts back a it on the luxuriates, the fact that the poor guys are willing to spend (most of) what they get means that there is money circulation, thus creation of values, overall: a strong economy.

A smaller money supply does not necessarily lead to stagnation. If it was true, than increasing the money supply would always lead to an economic boom. Don't tell Ben Bernanke, I think he'd probably buy it. History, proves you wrong.

Seriously, the only argument pro capitalism is, that in the socialist model, people unwilling or unable to contribute usefully to the society drag down the productive ones with them. In the capitalist model they are convinced to work or to die, respectively.
However, problem is, we life in an overproduction world already. If the "freeloaders" get social-sponsored food, this is not the food the others are suddenly missing, it's less food getting thrown away!

Thank you farm bills for wasted food. Then look at Africa and their poor, starving.

No one is convinced "to die" in capitalism. The fact that the less productive drag down the more productive is true, but only one of many arguments.

[JJ Place]

A withdraw of Feudal government with a remaining presence of Feudal Government?



No, they where not organized as an anarchist organization ; and having no single leader organizing a society does not make that society an anarchist society.



So, your saying each had a tribal government , and each tribe followed the leadership of a particular powerful leader of government when they thought it would benefit their collective or tribal interests?



Then , your saying that there is no National Government of all tribes , there are only City or State governments of each tribe; City and State Governments carrying out the exact functions of Government as City, County, State or Providence, and National Governments provide in the modern era? Essentially, the Sicilian Mafia comprised City and State governments , and simply did consist of National Governments , while carrying out all of the functions of all levels of government? That's not Anarchy, that's smaller societies holding an increased power of City and State at the expense of the National Government; Anarchy is not a synonym of City and State's Rights.




That's not Anarcho - Capitalist, that's just government changed from National Government to State Government. In the times of the Sicilian Mafia taking over for the previous Feudal Governments, government intervention potentially might just have lessened , and people might have began to gain increased levels Capitalism , and a lessening of extortion, exploition, and tyranny of government, and , an increase in freedom in society ; however, the change from Feudal governments to the government of the Sicilian Mafia where not changes from Government to Anarchy ; they where slight changes of government and of the existence and of the operation of government in Societies .

The society under the control of the Sicilian Mafia was not Anarcho - Capitalist; the society of the Sicilian Mafia is an example of City and State's Rights in an absence of a Nation Government . That is Not a society of Anarcho - Capitalism.

There was no remaining feudal government in many of these regions that it had withdrawn from at the time?

The Feudal Government had receded and retreated out of the regions of Italy; government had not entirely left Italy at all, and would quickly form into non - Feudal oligarchies , monarchies including large bureaucracies , and additional forms of politically un - free governments run by Italian Mafias.

The mafia clans are not comparable to city or state governments since they do not bother themselves with attempting to manage the people or territory, all they do is extort protection money and be violent if that doesn't happen;

If Feudal Governments teach us anything, it's that the government doesn't always care that much about you; in Feudalism , a ruling class, given virtually absolute power, exploits a permanently oppressed class of serfs , or slaves , and steals over 90% of their income , all at forced trade for merely an illusion of security; Government doesn't have to care about you, neither does Government have to micro - manage the lives of all in society, Government simply has to be in control of power which is not it's own in order to be Government.

they don't put it to any use in terms of national infrastructure.

In Feudalism, governments neither pays for national infrastructure , nor a large amount of infrastructure , nor a small amount of infrastructure , Feudal government exists with building as minimal of an amount of infrastructure as possible to protect it's own existence ; nothing in being government has anything to do with infrastructure , construction of infrastructure of society is not necessary in Government, Infrastructure and Government are not synonymous with one another.

They happened as a consequence of a lack of state control

Actually, they happened because the Sicilian Mafia was the State.

and the emergence of a capitalist system.

These mafia clans behave according to an unwritten set of loose rules, a common law if you will; that they enforce amongst themselves in order to remain traditional.

Which laws would these laws be, to be precise?

They do not enforce these rules onto others, beyond the aforementioned protection money.

Beyond the aforementioned protection money?

They are not a government since they do not govern, only amongst themselves.

They governed alright; taking money from another group without their permission is governing, and is not only amongst themselves. The Sicilian Mafia was a government.

They are however the product of a lack of state enforcement

The Sicilian Mafia was the State.

and monopoly on power,

We can all be happy at this; for very few times in history, the State has held a nearly absolute Monopoly on Power, all to the expense of the citizens of the society. Monarchies of later European times are often pointed to as having a virtually absolute Monarchy on Power and on Force, however, with the advent of fire arms and artillery, absolute power and absolute control thankfully became incredibly rare phenomena in society, with the only exceptions after the times of these technological marvels , including The U.S.S.R. , and the Third Reich. The only instances of nearly absolute monopolies of power and monopolies of force being the times of Feudalism, known as the Dark Ages.

and anarchist in structure.

Please explain further?

Sure they're more authoritarian anarchists than liberals

Authoritarianism and Anarchism are polar opposes such as fire and ice; in the circumstance of either co - existing, one must defeat the other in order to survive, less they both perish into a form completely different, and not of the same previous form.

, just as the Pushtun on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border can be considered as religious conservative anarchists.

No, they can be classified as Religious Conservative Terrorist Authoritarians for attempting to force their believes on others; they're not Anarchists, they're Authoritarians.

That doesn't mean their complete lack of centralised government, social basis on a non-codified common law is unanarchist.

Anarchy is not simply a society lacking a Centralized Government , Anarchy is a society that has no State at all, even down to the State and local levels of government. Anarchy is additionally not a society of no law; Anarchy is a society of no Government. Anarchy is not a government simply lacking a Centralized Government , and Anarchy is neither a society of no law; Anarchy is a society of No Government, nothing more, nothing less, that's all that is the ideology of Anarchy.

[Kaledoria]

The poor in capitalist based economies make the middle class in socialist economies look poor.

Because the wealth goes where?

In socialism, the rich guy does not control prices.

Socialism is not planned market economy.

Economy tends to stagnate:
There is rich guy with 102$ again and 10 poor guys with 3$. ... At time unit 1. Now rich guy only pays 50$ for luxuries. (the 10 poor once all pay their money, cause people need 1$ of something besides survival or go crazy)
Capitalism: Now in the next step, only 52+ 10*3 = 82 $ were spend. Probably rich guy made about 60, the poor ones below 2. Now the rich guy sees: "Oh, my profit!" and fires poor guy #1 and 2 who happen to work for him and the poor make debts but that is not the point, with is, that rich guy will save money again, and the poor guys will no longer pay 3$ but only 2$ (because they save on anything not essential to survive in order not to make more debts)-
But still, in the end, there is lot less money in circulation then should := Economic stagnation.
Socialism: The money formally saved goes to the poor guys. Even if the rich guy cuts back a it on the luxuriates, the fact that the poor guys are willing to spend (most of) what they get means that there is money circulation, thus creation of values, overall: a strong economy.

A smaller money supply does not necessarily lead to stagnation. If it was true, than increasing the money supply would always lead to an economic boom. Don't tell Ben Bernanke, I think he'd probably buy it. History, proves you wrong.

I'm not sure what you are trying to imply. That "increasing money supply" leads to inflation what hinders the economy? Somewhat right, the important part is the value produced and once again the social model scores because what the poorer people buy stuff with real measurable value while the "luxurious" stuff is usually a big part virtual value that is nothing but "exclusiveness" and "name".

History proves nothing. It's just a series of anecdotes. And considering that nations are not exactly short-living entities it's not nearly a statistically sufficient set. With lots of impeding factors that prevent to take a direct conclusion from any correlation between economic model and success.

[Just Guy]

Mixed-economy welfare state, with the private market highly regulated.

[Sibirsky]

The poor in capitalist based economies make the middle class in socialist economies look poor.

Because the wealth goes where?

Because they have jobs that create wealth.

In socialism, the rich guy does not control prices.

Socialism is not planned market economy.

The ones we've seen in the world have been.

A smaller money supply does not necessarily lead to stagnation. If it was true, than increasing the money supply would always lead to an economic boom. Don't tell Ben Bernanke, I think he'd probably buy it. History, proves you wrong.

I'm not sure what you are trying to imply. That "increasing money supply" leads to inflation what hinders the economy? Somewhat right, the important part is the value produced and once again the social model scores because what the poorer people buy stuff with real measurable value while the "luxurious" stuff is usually a big part virtual value that is nothing but "exclusiveness" and "name".

History proves nothing. It's just a series of anecdotes. And considering that nations are not exactly short-living entities it's not nearly a statistically sufficient set. With lots of impeding factors that prevent to take a direct conclusion from any correlation between economic model and success.

[The Merchant Republics]

The poor in capitalist based economies make the middle class in socialist economies look poor.

Because the wealth goes where?

Zero Sum Fail.

Their is not a sum total amount of wealth to be made in the world and not all people can equally tap into it, so to demonstrate the reality:

Rich Guy (Capitalist Economy): makes $200 worth of wealth, paying his three employees (Poor Guys) $22
Rich Guy (Socialist* Economy): makes $40 worth of wealth, pay his three employees half.

Rich Guy (CE): Makes $134
Poor Guys (CE): Make $22

Rich Guy (SE): Makes $20
Poor Guys (SE): Make $7.50

Ignoring some glaring faults in this type of assessment, by comparison, it is better to be a poor person in a Capitalist Economy.

[Crabulonia]

Because the wealth goes where?

Zero Sum Fail.

Their is not a sum total amount of wealth to be made in the world and not all people can equally tap into it, so to demonstrate the reality:

Rich Guy (Capitalist Economy): makes $200 worth of wealth, paying his three employees (Poor Guys) $22
Rich Guy (Socialist* Economy): makes $40 worth of wealth, pay his three employees half.

Rich Guy (CE): Makes $134
Poor Guys (CE): Make $22

Rich Guy (SE): Makes $20
Poor Guys (SE): Make $7.50

Ignoring some glaring faults in this type of assessment, by comparison, it is better to be a poor person in a Capitalist Economy.

One likely source of error is the fact that you still have one person earning more than the rest - which isn't an entirley Socialist idea. The actual figure would be about $19.99 each, I wouldn't work a full day for it but it's something. This puts them very close to the 'boss' - if such a creature existed - and not very far off the poor Capitalist.

Now I'll admit freely that Socialism has many flaws, mostly where rather than what - if a shitty backward country with a mostly agricultural economy takes to Socialism then guess what? It's still a shitty backward mostly agricultural economy, without some massive tweaks that may ultimately lead to famine - but both examples are flawed. Both systems are flawed - state-Capitalism and state-Socialism - both lead to corruption and ultimately diverge from their initially intended aims.

The views of Adam Smith in particular have been greatly perverted - even in America, the land of the free markets (though I've heard somewhere that Adam Smith wasn't so popular back in the day in America and that was something else) - as he thought that business should stay small and be guided with morality and not a heartless profit motive, though he misread the human condition. The views of Karl Marx have been also perverted - particularly in the USSR, China, Korea and any other hellhole you care to mention - who said that Capitalism was a useful stage in human development but that humans must then develop beyond it towards a more fair system.

Adam Smith would object as much to multi-nationals nowadays as many dubbed 'socialists' object to them, Karl Marx would object to totalitarian systems vehemently. Now while both men are not perfect, and neither are their theories, their theories appear to have been disregarded completely in the name of following them, and not to any great ends.

[The Merchant Republics]

One likely source of error is the fact that you still have one person earning more than the rest - which isn't an entirley Socialist idea. The actual figure would be about $19.99 each, I wouldn't work a full day for it but it's something. This puts them very close to the 'boss' - if such a creature existed - and not very far off the poor Capitalist.

Now I'll admit freely that Socialism has many flaws, mostly where rather than what - if a shitty backward country with a mostly agricultural economy takes to Socialism then guess what? It's still a shitty backward mostly agricultural economy, without some massive tweaks that may ultimately lead to famine - but both examples are flawed. Both systems are flawed - state-Capitalism and state-Socialism - both lead to corruption and ultimately diverge from their initially intended aims.

The views of Adam Smith in particular have been greatly perverted - even in America, the land of the free markets (though I've heard somewhere that Adam Smith wasn't so popular back in the day in America and that was something else) - as he thought that business should stay small and be guided with morality and not a heartless profit motive, though he misread the human condition. The views of Karl Marx have been also perverted - particularly in the USSR, China, Korea and any other hellhole you care to mention - who said that Capitalism was a useful stage in human development but that humans must then develop beyond it towards a more fair system.

Adam Smith would object as much to multi-nationals nowadays as many dubbed 'socialists' object to them, Karl Marx would object to totalitarian systems vehemently. Now while both men are not perfect, and neither are their theories, their theories appear to have been disregarded completely in the name of following them, and not to any great ends.

I was working with the posters flawed view of socialism, which was essentially a heavy-handed mix market.

A Socialist Economy in a backwards agricultural society does in fact often lead to stagnation and famine, for the same reason that doing so in an industrial economy would lead to stagnation and poverty, a socialist economy essentially acts as a leech of resources, if such as in a Industrial Economy, the majority of people's needs are being met easily, your switch to socialism the result will be less severe a drop, poverty instead of famine. Still this is to be avoided. Even in the false flag name of fairness.

Now as for Adam Smith, regretfully I must inform you that you are very much wrong, Adam Smith was anti-monopolist but not anti-corporation and he was the one who first introduced the concept of working for selfish motives bringing about positive ends, his "invisible hand", to quote him.

Man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me what I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is the manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love.

[Crabulonia]

One likely source of error is the fact that you still have one person earning more than the rest - which isn't an entirley Socialist idea. The actual figure would be about $19.99 each, I wouldn't work a full day for it but it's something. This puts them very close to the 'boss' - if such a creature existed - and not very far off the poor Capitalist.

Now I'll admit freely that Socialism has many flaws, mostly where rather than what - if a shitty backward country with a mostly agricultural economy takes to Socialism then guess what? It's still a shitty backward mostly agricultural economy, without some massive tweaks that may ultimately lead to famine - but both examples are flawed. Both systems are flawed - state-Capitalism and state-Socialism - both lead to corruption and ultimately diverge from their initially intended aims.

The views of Adam Smith in particular have been greatly perverted - even in America, the land of the free markets (though I've heard somewhere that Adam Smith wasn't so popular back in the day in America and that was something else) - as he thought that business should stay small and be guided with morality and not a heartless profit motive, though he misread the human condition. The views of Karl Marx have been also perverted - particularly in the USSR, China, Korea and any other hellhole you care to mention - who said that Capitalism was a useful stage in human development but that humans must then develop beyond it towards a more fair system.

Adam Smith would object as much to multi-nationals nowadays as many dubbed 'socialists' object to them, Karl Marx would object to totalitarian systems vehemently. Now while both men are not perfect, and neither are their theories, their theories appear to have been disregarded completely in the name of following them, and not to any great ends.

I was working with the posters flawed view of socialism, which was essentially a heavy-handed mix market.

Now as for Adam Smith, regretfully I must inform you that you are very much wrong, Adam Smith was anti-monopolist but not anti-corporation and he was the one who first introduced the concept of working for selfish motives bringing about positive ends, his "invisible hand", to quote him.

Man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me what I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is the manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love.

Must have missed that bit, ah well. I'm still quite sure that he would have morally been against the use of coercion against employees such as in giving them limited wages and stifling union opportunities.

[Dystopianus]

Capitalism or Socialism?

Simple. None of both. A mixed economy is the only sensible option.

[New Colon]

Third position.

[Neo-Sincostan]

I like how this has just turned into a huge debate about economy and the market

[Crabulonia]

I like how this has just turned into a huge debate about economy and the market

Mention Capitalism, Socialism, finances, or indeed money and general and it will tend to happen.

[The Merchant Republics]

I was working with the posters flawed view of socialism, which was essentially a heavy-handed mix market.

Now as for Adam Smith, regretfully I must inform you that you are very much wrong, Adam Smith was anti-monopolist but not anti-corporation and he was the one who first introduced the concept of working for selfish motives bringing about positive ends, his "invisible hand", to quote him.

Must have missed that bit, ah well. I'm still quite sure that he would have morally been against the use of coercion against employees such as in giving them limited wages and stifling union opportunities.

Not the former nor the later are examples of coercion, coercion would be union busting through violent means or abusing workers, which did occur and is rightly abhorred, simply paying them not that much and being against their organization is not coercion by any standard of a definition, perhaps you are looking for exploitation? Still not accurate, but at least fits the example.

Coercion is the act of force, corporations don't force workers to accept low wages, they offer low wages and the wages are accepted, exploitation? Perhaps. Coercion? No.