Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Capitalism vs Socialism

Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 8:27:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 8:19:10 PM, yay842 wrote:
What's the difference?

Depends on what you mean by capitalism and socialism.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 9:03:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well first I should say that most economies now and in modern history have not had either pure capitalism or pure socialism.

Pure (also called laissez-faire) capitalism is where capital (the means of production: factories, machines, things that take raw materials and turn them into manufactured goods) are owned by private individuals or private corporations. The government exists to define and defend property rights and civil liberties, enforce contracts, resolve legal disputes, establish the rule of law, defend national security, etc., but doesn't do anything else. As long as you do not have monopolies, externalities, asymmetric information, public goods, or other market failures (note: this is very rare in real life), then pure capitalism gives you a free market and all prices, wages, etc., are determined by supply and demand.

Pure socialism is where the govenment owns all of the means of production (so all industries) - and usually when people say pure socialism they also mean that the government owns all land and all banks and financial institutions, too. The government gets to decide if and when something is for sale and the price, how much of any product is made, and how much anyone is paid for any work. In practice this requires a huge bureaucracy of people who collect all kinds of statistics about the economy and use them to decide what prices and wages to set and what goals to set for production of any good. Because of the ridiculous amount of information that you need to collect and analyze in even a small country and the fact that a bureaucrat does not have the same incentive to make production efficient as someone who owns their own factory and gets to keep the factory's profits, pure socialism tends to be very difficult to make work.

Most developed countries today have a mixed market economy, which is somewhere between the two systems, but since the end of the Cold War all developed economies have moved to being closer to pure capitalism than pure socialism.

There are also the possible economic systems of anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism (which is similar to anarcho-syndicalism), where you have no government or hardly any government at all. Anarcho-socialism may sound odd because I defined socialism as where the government basically owns everything. Anarcho-socialism is where you basically have a society of independent voluntary cooperatives instead of any government. These systems only really exist in theory, but I'm sure you'll find people on DDO who would advocate for them.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 9:13:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Pure capitalism is survival of the fittest, obviously. Just because you draw lines between certain elements of that doesn't mean it's not still adding up to the exact same thing. Socialism, then, as a sensible converse, is not survival of the fittest, but togetherness.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 2:49:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 8:19:10 PM, yay842 wrote:
What's the difference?

http://www.debate.org...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 12:48:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 8:19:10 PM, yay842 wrote:
What's the difference?

Capitalists believe the means of production should be privately owned.
Socialists believe the means of production should be publicly owned.
Communists believe all property should be publicly owned.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 3:49:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 12:48:32 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/6/2014 8:19:10 PM, yay842 wrote:
What's the difference?

Capitalists believe the means of production should be privately owned.
Socialists believe the means of production should be publicly owned.
Communists believe all property should be publicly owned.

This last one would be controversial in some communist circles.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 9:56:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 9:03:37 PM, rockwater wrote:
Well first I should say that most economies now and in modern history have not had either pure capitalism or pure socialism.

Pure (also called laissez-faire) capitalism is where capital (the means of production: factories, machines, things that take raw materials and turn them into manufactured goods) are owned by private individuals or private corporations. The government exists to define and defend property rights and civil liberties, enforce contracts, resolve legal disputes, establish the rule of law, defend national security, etc., but doesn't do anything else. As long as you do not have monopolies, externalities, asymmetric information, public goods, or other market failures (note: this is very rare in real life), then pure capitalism gives you a free market and all prices, wages, etc., are determined by supply and demand.

Pure socialism is where the govenment owns all of the means of production (so all industries) - and usually when people say pure socialism they also mean that the government owns all land and all banks and financial institutions, too. The government gets to decide if and when something is for sale and the price, how much of any product is made, and how much anyone is paid for any work. In practice this requires a huge bureaucracy of people who collect all kinds of statistics about the economy and use them to decide what prices and wages to set and what goals to set for production of any good. Because of the ridiculous amount of information that you need to collect and analyze in even a small country and the fact that a bureaucrat does not have the same incentive to make production efficient as someone who owns their own factory and gets to keep the factory's profits, pure socialism tends to be very difficult to make work.

Most developed countries today have a mixed market economy, which is somewhere between the two systems, but since the end of the Cold War all developed economies have moved to being closer to pure capitalism than pure socialism.

There are also the possible economic systems of anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism (which is similar to anarcho-syndicalism), where you have no government or hardly any government at all. Anarcho-socialism may sound odd because I defined socialism as where the government basically owns everything. Anarcho-socialism is where you basically have a society of independent voluntary cooperatives instead of any government. These systems only really exist in theory, but I'm sure you'll find people on DDO who would advocate for them.

You're mostly accurate. Pure socialism would more mean that the workers controlled the means of production. This is often simplified to the government if the government represents the workers, but it doesn't have to.