Amazon.com Widgets
  • Socialism is utilitarian

    Yes, because socialism is more to do with the interest of the society as a whole- it is utilitarian. That does not mean that the interest of the individual is ignored. It advocates cooperation, which means we are more productive because we can pool our resources, expertise as well as take advantage of economies of scale and division of labour. It is not, as some claim, ‘equality’ or ‘statism’ (Marx was in fact against statism in his later works). Each person will be rewarded according to their contribution to the group as determined by the group. I appreciate that some capitalists advocate cooperation through the market, but socialists have decided to go one step further- we believe in cooperative and democratic management of production, because the workers are the boss- they are empowered and motivated as well as being given the responsibility, hence they become more productive. Capitalism I might add is the best system SO FAR. As much as attempts of socialism have failed in the last few centuries it is rather like how Thomas Edison said he found six hundred ways how not to invent a light bulb (though whether he did invent the light bulb is still disputed). The socialist bulb will, in my opinion, replace the capitalist lantern.
    Furthermore, I would like to say that the ‘failures’ of socialist places like the USSR have being blown out of proportion, while their advantages downplayed- the USSR had free schooling, free health care, free housing, job security, minimum wages and stable prices. No wonder many (though by no means all) eastern Europeans are nostalgic. But I’m still acknowledging the failures of socialism, as well as the fact that socialism is not perfect.
    I would like opponents to not appeal to authority by quoting Winston Churchill regarding ‘the virtues of socialism…vice of capitalism’. He was a great man and a true loyal fellow Briton. But I cannot ‘worship’ his views.

  • Socialism is utilitarian

    Yes, because socialism is more to do with the interest of the society as a whole- it is utilitarian. That does not mean that the interest of the individual is ignored. It advocates cooperation, which means we are more productive because we can pool our resources, expertise as well as take advantage of economies of scale and division of labour. It is not, as some claim, ‘equality’ or ‘statism’ (Marx was in fact against statism in his later works). Each person will be rewarded according to their contribution to the group as determined by the group. I appreciate that some capitalists advocate cooperation through the market, but socialists have decided to go one step further- we believe in cooperative and democratic management of production, because the workers are the boss- they are empowered and motivated as well as being given the responsibility, hence they become more productive. Capitalism I might add is the best system SO FAR. As much as attempts of socialism have failed in the last few centuries it is rather like how Thomas Edison said he found six hundred ways how not to invent a light bulb (though whether he did invent the light bulb is still disputed). The socialist bulb will, in my opinion, replace the capitalist lantern.
    Furthermore, I would like to say that the ‘failures’ of socialist places like the USSR have being blown out of proportion, while their advantages downplayed- the USSR had free schooling, free health care, free housing, job security, minimum wages and stable prices. No wonder many (though by no means all) eastern Europeans are nostalgic. But I’m still acknowledging the failures of socialism, as well as the fact that socialism is not perfect.
    I would like opponents to not appeal to authority by quoting Winston Churchill regarding ‘the virtues of socialism…vice of capitalism’. He was a great man and a true loyal fellow Briton. But I cannot ‘worship’ his views.

  • Yes, America is socialist and has gotten better as a whole every time it gets more socialist.

    This is already a socialist country, give up you tea bagging f***tards. You lost, game over, go back to something you're good at like blowing goats or blowing up your meth labs. It's the damn honkies that have this country twisted upside down. Put the honkies in jail then ask this question.

  • This question is not economically sound

    The reason I put "no", is because the answer to whether socialism is better than capitalism depends on what you want. If you want the things that socialism provides, then yes it is better than capitalism... For you. However, if you want the things that capitalism provides, then socialism is probably not the better way of doing things... For you.

    Sorry if I broke the debate.

  • I can confidently say no

    Socialism means 1000 things but if you are comparing it to capitalism, then understand you are now reducing it to an economic theory. Capitalism can be summed up as the private ownership of the means of production, and socialism contrasts with public ownership, which can take on different medium, most use government.

    That being the case these can be directly measured, and in the real world very few things are "pure" anything including systems, thus they operate on a spectrum. Here is one list measuring economic freedom as defined by private ownership of the means of production.
    Http://www.Heritage.Org/index/ranking

    While definitely not a perfect 1:1 relationship, I'd bet you'd choose countries that were closer to the top of the list than those at the bottom.

    Ideology is wonder, but its application is important. If it takes angels to make a particular idea work, then chances are that the idea was not based to function under the human condition.

    Obviously arguments can be made that future technologies can make it happen but until I see the more socialistic leaning governments start gaining traction over the capitalistic leaning governments due to said technology. I'd say its a rather safe conclusion that socialism is not overall better than capitalism as it stands in the early 21st century.

  • Capitalism is necessary for society to function.

    Socialism as a whole is detrimental to society. While it is meant to make poor people richer, what it actually ends up doing is making everyone worse off. A majority of the millionaires and billionaires (not all, but most), got their riches from selling products, or assisting in the selling of products that have been overall beneficial. We have the best technological advantages, because those rich people are trying to find new ways to make better products for less money, so they can maximize their profit. In this scenario, there are no losers. They work hard because they have to make good products, or people will flock to their competition, and they'll go out of business. In socialism, there is very little progress, or sometimes even no progress at all, technologically. Because if there's no competition, then there's no incentive to innovate. Which means that technological advantages, medical advantages and so on, would be few and far between, or would more likely stop entirely. In essence, while capitalism sounds bad on the surface, while socialism feels better, capitalism in general helps way more people than socialism ever will. Anybody who believes that needs to research the USSR. I also think that people tend to overlook capitalism, because they assume all capitalism is cronyism, which is indeed a real problem, however most capitalism is not like that.

  • From Each according to their Ability, to Each, according to their need

    Under a perfect socialist system where everyone is equal, an engineer will do way more technical work than a fast food worker, because the engineer has far more skill than the fast food worker will ever have. The problem is that under a perfect socialist system, the engineer will make exactly as much money as the fast food worker, because both are humans, and both have the same needs.
    That fast food worker will never have any incentive to be more productive or skilled since he will make the same no matter how little he actually does, and he'll still get fed, still get free healthcare, still get all the amenities provided to him as everyone else. Because there is no reward for doing anything extraordinary, scientific progress will cease because there is no reason to bother discovering anything new or inventing anything new. If the scientist could get paid the same amount twiddling his thumbs in his office as he gets paid to go the extra mile and put forth the effort to prove a theory works, chances are he's going to twiddle his thumbs.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.