• Capitalism

  • Socialism

75% 18 votes
25% 6 votes
  • Communism/socialism leads to a corrupt, classless and poorer society.

  • It has been seen throughout history that when markets and the economy are free, the people benefitted, even today and in the past, socialist societies only live off underground capitalistic success, in the when the soviet union legalized the sale of some surplus crops, the 10% of non-communal farms produced well over two-thirds of all the crops. Under capitalism, workers enter contracts that they like with business owners, who risk their capital for a return on investment, which then goes to repay the workers who helped with his business. No price control, collectivized plan, or centralized socialistic policy has achieved prosperity, in fact, it has ended in famine for all. Under socialism, the population waits in lines for healthcare, food and shelter, under capitalism, all those lines wait on the consumer. Under a free market place, everyone benefits, when the market is free, prices decrease, productivity increases and standard of living increases.

  • It made America stronger than any other nation. We won the cold war didn't we?

  • But it has to be "real" Capitalism, not Crony Capitalism when the Government and already rich banks and corporations work together to make each other richer and more powerful.

  • Socialism promotes fair play and cooperation. People who work hard are rewarded. Under Capitalism, CEO's and Executives become "successful" through their underling's work, not through their own.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Stefy says2015-05-13T19:14:15.7404288-05:00
Social democracy. Like a regulated capitalism.
komododragon8 says2015-05-13T19:35:20.9646617-05:00
Which kinds of socialism and capitalism.
briantheliberal says2015-05-13T20:10:50.5479637-05:00
How about both? Only relying on one is a sure way to destroy an economy. Balance is key.
CyberConor says2015-05-13T21:37:37.4735183-05:00
People need to take responsibility. That is the issue.
Darkaegis says2015-05-14T00:03:09.7478691-05:00
Marx didn't advocate socialism, as he said it too was doomed to fail after the state becomes corrupt. He advocated communism which is the collective gain and ownership of society sans state, money, or class. It has long since been seen as impossible to attain, and thus most countries choose to go with a balanced system.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T14:24:05.4491283-05:00
@MechVarg So why would I choose to work for literally everyone else. You thought just working for 'someone' else is bad, try having to work for an entire nation of them.
MechVarg says2015-05-14T15:52:19.4027355-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality ...
MechVarg says2015-05-14T15:54:15.5516877-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality Are you that dense?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T20:17:38.5386875-05:00
I stand behind what I said. Can you explain to me how that would not be the case under Socialism?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T20:25:08.5742706-05:00
I rather like being able to choose who I work under. I like that that one person can have a bigger affect on my life than this anonymous entity that is the mob. I like that I can pick a person or corporation with virtue to back with my time and hard work, and that I can get a sense of accomplishment from sharing in success only with those who align themselves with me morally and ideologically. I find all inclusiveness and lack of choice inherent in total socialism to make that an impossibility.
MechVarg says2015-05-14T20:52:40.1352307-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality No one's saying to share the fruits of your labor with everyone (except ancoms and maybe some crazies, but not socialists). Under capitalism, you can just hire people to work for you and get money from THEIR labor. More likely, that will be done to you.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T21:09:10.0554483-05:00
Where does my money go then? You mean I have more than a 1 in [insert total population here] say in where my investments and taxes go to under socialism? Again, I wont deny there is one guy in the ladder getting a sweet deal. Why would I trade 1 tyrant for 300M tyrants?
MechVarg says2015-05-14T21:13:23.0509378-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality What is this money you speak of? What are these taxes you speak of? What are these tyrants you speak of?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T21:18:36.2287701-05:00
Oh you're right ... I don't get to have money under socialism. Socialism makes tyrants of my neighbors and peers. Taxes would be my peers removing my ability to own things or make my ideas material.
MechVarg says2015-05-14T21:23:37.3140399-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality >:3 honhonhon
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T21:30:19.1049471-05:00
">:3 honhonhon'' Touché? Youre the alternative? I'll stick with my rich guy benefactor, thanks.
MechVarg says2015-05-14T21:32:24.3879615-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality I'm waiting for socialist reinforcements; you've bored me
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T21:33:44.0415615-05:00
Let them come ...
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T21:37:27.4807924-05:00
Don't hold your breath though. The irony here is they wouldn't be there to defend you were you in your Socialist dream nation either.
MechVarg says2015-05-14T21:56:24.7695648-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality Ok, they're not coming. Anyhow, socialism is based on social ownership of the means of production, cooperative management of the economy, production for use, and "to each according to his contribution". That's it. Have you tried to educate yourself about socialism using non-"libertarian" sources?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T22:14:30.9138966-05:00
Meritocracy is not part of socialism. There is no "to each according to his contribution". Where did you quote that from?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T22:15:30.2102568-05:00
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T22:17:08.4291160-05:00
What of all the ones who contribute nothing? Socialism does not abandon them. That's why I know that statement of yours to be false in reality.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T22:17:33.0417028-05:00
In practice*
MechVarg says2015-05-14T22:23:58.4385895-05:00
I never stated that one gained POWER from contributing. It's from The Critique of the Gotha Program. It depends on the branch of socialism.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T22:30:29.5149862-05:00
No not gaining, but you implied that someone who makes no contribution would get, equally in turn, zero access to those things controlled by the public.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T22:33:21.4291902-05:00
There's enough examples of public ownerships inefficiency and ineffectiveness in our society already to know it would be a bad idea to extend that control to all aspects of government and life.
Trig314 says2015-05-19T01:42:30.3519543-05:00
Free market capitalism. But NOT Crony Capitalism.
Trig314 says2015-05-19T01:52:01.1511923-05:00
@MechVarg: People who own a big business and make money off of their employees never started off with that kind of success. 90% of all millionaires are actually 1st generation. Many of these people start off working for companies before starting their own business which made them successful through hard work and smart choices. And besides, if you are an employee, and you get a job from a company like this, then you are agreeing to the terms of your employment. If employees don't like the fact their employer is making money off them, then they can choose not to work for that company.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-19T09:32:26.0693848-05:00
Thats a good point. Communism was born from a generation where the wealthy were from long bloodlines and stayed wealthy by birthright. And it only took capitalism and direct representation to squash that. There is no need to go any more liberal than that. The enemies for communism, the monarch and the born rich, are gone. Communism was an extremist solution to a problem that is no longer as prevalent in society. It's no longer needed.
MechVarg says2015-05-19T20:40:54.3014908-05:00
@Trig314 That does not justify making money off other people. And under capitalism, it's work for someone else or die.
Trig314 says2015-05-23T02:29:53.0643156-05:00
@MechVarg. I think you keep forgetting that all employees are agreeing to their wages. It's called a "consensual" agreement. The free market says that people who flip burgers are not worth $15 per hour.
MechVarg says2015-05-24T23:43:49.8972409-05:00
@Trig314 You forget that if they disagree, they will starve.
Trig314 says2015-05-25T12:32:58.6221476-05:00
@MechVarg. If they disagree then they need to find another way to make money. Maybe try creating their own business(which would be a lot of easier if government would remove their barriers to entry). There is so much opportunity to make money, that there really isn't an excuse to steal money. For example, my own mother on top of creating her own business, has decided to buy a bunch of cheap houses, do renovations on those houses, and then sell them for more than she bought it for. That's not a "job." That's just buying and reselling and it works to make money. I happen to be talented in math and science, and so lots of parents need people like me to tutor their children which gives me an opportunity to make money. Applying for a job isn't the only way to make money, you have to discover something that many people need to have and take advantage of that to make money. Hell, immigrants come o this country working jobs none of us would want to to, making less money than us and they are still managing to put food on their tables. There really is no excuse. It may be very tough to make money, but that's just motivation to find better ways of making money.
debate_power says2015-05-25T16:00:24.0265269-05:00
Okay... I've been reading some of the comments here... I was asked by MechVarg to back him up on this. The situation is not so clear-cut and invariant as "capitalism forces you to work for others in order not to starve", for instance. There are situations, however, in which individuals would have to, given certain conditions in which individuals would be forced to sell their labor to survive... And these would be in cases where, in certain societies, all property would be private, the individual would be forced by law or limited options to take place in those societies, and not everyone would have a share of private property that they would be able to live off of. Those would be the conditions for the "forced to sell labor" situation. The reality of life in the United States is that, while economists call the country a "capitalist" one, our society is not quite capitalist. Not all industrial means are privately-owned over here, for instance, and "private"-property owners do not have supreme, unrestricted control over their property over here either- thus, there is no true private property in the United States, and thus no real capitalism. Our current economic system is neither capitalism nor socialism, but a society in which economic decisions are partly community-made and partly privately-made. I'm just making sure that is clear before we forget it.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-26T08:39:21.1797709-05:00
And why I never claimed the US to be entirely right in what its doing. That is why there is a struggle here afterall. We are still working the socialistic kinks out of our otherwise perfect system.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.