Capitalism (yes) vs. socialism (no): Which offers more decision-making apparatuses?

  • Because I do what I want with my body, mind, and Spirit.

    The will to decide what I will do with my life! I don't need a small corrupt elite society to dictate how I will spend my life. Ya know believe it or not some people actually care to exceed and better themselves and there quality of life. Why should we all settle for shit living conditions just to support the lazy, and the ones who will accept a shit hole of a life in which they will never improve upon. Oh yea and fuck Obamacare it turned out to be what we all expected the government forcing healthcare on the whole population, and the monthly bill for this shit system going up 25% on the middle hard working class every fucking year just so that the lazy can get what they want WITHOUT CONTRIBUTING! Not a very good start for you jack ass lazy wanna be progressive fuck sticks out there! It has already failed and is further fucking the middle class in which we would have no country without!

  • Yes, capitalism offers more consumer choice

    In a capitalist society the consumer determines the value of any good or service. Companies must now compete to get more customers by either making a better product, or finding a way to sell their product for cheaper than competitors. In a socialist state, there is one company, and if their product is sub par, then that is what consumers are stuck with.

  • Capitalism results in more choices

    Capitalism allows for each individual to make more decisions about their life and business, as well as in one's ability to vote within politics. You are more in control of your own decisions rather than others being in control. Thus, capitalism offers more decision making apparatuses than its socialist counterpart.

  • Socialism is the logical conclusion of rational self-interest in the 21st century.

    Socialism's historical failures can be traced back to one main factor: the limits of technology. The material conditions of society before now were limited in their mass productive abilities, communication, and continue to be limited in world view. But socialism now, with contemporary society's abilities, the issue is not of technology, but of institutions. The media proliferates the idea that socialism must take away your rights to provide for everyone, a kind of hollow provision because no one is happy or fully provided for. The media asserts that only free market capitalism, with the invisible hand of price guiding the market, can ensure we live as free people. These ideas are false. Note that the free market has never existed and can never exist in it's idealized form. The market could not function without some form of government as a regulatory body. Even if the market is underground, it requires a currency that can used legally. Advocating for a smaller government in pursuit of a free market is like trying to live in an imaginary world. The economic system of socialism, paired with democracy, has the capability of surpassing capitalism because whereas capitalism is theoretically based in rational self-interest (but in practice is irrational, myopic profit-interest), upon the realization that the macroeconomic scale of a globalized market requires immense cooperation to succeed, rational self-interest becomes manifest in rational collective interest, and that compatible pairing of interests permits a democratic society to address the real ills of the world. Capitalism sustains scarcity in order to produce abstract profit, but socialism strives to reduce scarcity. Quality items are meant to become cheaper and more abundant, healthcare, education, housing, these are meant to be allocated. Suspending doubt for a moment on how the allocation occurs, no one would claim that a society free of hunger, poverty, and ignorance is bad. In fact, I believe most everyone would agree that the ends that socialism aims for are just. The primary issue is one of allocation and how that translates to legal rights, and this is a valid concern that can be solved with vast decentralized communication technology. All wealth produced comes from the resources used, whether it be labour or natural capital or simply time. The people who labour, the land that is used, the time that is spent, these all are parts of the collective. All wealth that is produced is not meant to be privately stored and kept, if one wishes to be just. Rather, the wealth, as a product of the community, belongs to the community. Necessary resources ought to allocated in a fully democratic way. From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. Capitalism will never seek to make people debt-free, but socialism will.

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