Which side makes a better case?
avatar
44 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 10 months ago

    Socialist programs? I missed the definitions, but government intervention does not equal socialism.

    • 10 months ago

      Capitalism causes poverty? What kind of crack are you smoking? No buddy, that is not how that works.

      • 10 months ago

        @alot_like_locke Poverty is a necessary result of capitalism. You have to have people at the bottom to have people at the top.

      • 10 months ago

        @madmike False. Like beyond to the point that it is baffling how you come to that conclusion.

      • 10 months ago

        @madmike poverty is the Default setting, Only capitalism brings people Out of that basic and standard way of life that existed for all of time Till Capitalismcame along and did most of the world of poverty. And even if you were to think that 'to have people at the top means there would be people at the bottom' a capitalist society in no way means those at the bottom are poor. Where would peiple rather be poor: socialist Venezuela/NK/... or capitalist US/Denmark/anywhere? Just look at capitalist countries like the US or HK or even Denmark (their PM told B.S. to stop badmouthing Denmark, "Were a Market economy").
        You completely mix up socialism, which you dont understand and are very mixed up on, with government welfare. NOT the same thing.

        Also- Greece was more socialistic than most and couldn't Inflate their currency.
        China was a completely impoverished country under 'pure' socialism and only emerged after murderous Mao died and free markets came about.
        New Zealand Is among the freest markets in the world, very Not socialist.

      • 10 months ago

        @nellyj_misesian seems to me that you are confusing the normal application socialism with the worst examples that have ever come about.

      • 10 months ago

        @nellyj_misesian poverty is not the default setting in a socialist system. You’re simply mistaken. However, in a capitalist system, poverty is the default setting as you are born wihout possessions or capital, and as such have no value in a capitalist system.

      • 10 months ago

        @madmike when was Capitalism born? Answer: with the industrial revolution. Before that EVERYBODY was living in abject poverty just like in socialism today where most people starve to death. It's called the Maduro diet in Venezuela where people lost an average of 22 lbs last year.

    • 10 months ago

      No one has a 100% literacy rate.

    • 10 months ago

      He does not make that much, his investment portfolio does, you are conflating things. And are completely wrong.

      • 10 months ago

        Socialism can provide security of starving and death.

        • 10 months ago

          We do not agree to that at all. Capitalism is not selfish. Not worrying about their needs met, or food? Did you miss the 20th century where all of these people starved to death????

          • 10 months ago

            @madmike people only starve in socialist countries and they do so in mass- 45 Million under Mao and 20 million under Stalin or today in impoverished Cuba. There is not a single person who actually starves in the entire US. Even the most 'impoverished' have cell phones and plenty to eat. The main complaint is that the poor are far in the US.

            • 10 months ago

              @nellyj_misesian why do you think it is that no one starves in the United States? Where do they get the funds to have access to cell phones and plenty to eat?

            • 10 months ago

              @madmike a market econo.y, of course. You have absolutely no idea what Socialism is. You really dont.

            • 10 months ago

              NPR Planet Money-1/20/12

              ....The contract was so risky — and such a big deal — because it was created at the height of communism in China. Everyone worked on the village's collective farm; there was no personal property.

              "Back then, even one straw belonged to the group," says Yen Jingchang, who was a farmer in Xiaogang in 1978. "No one owned anything."

              At one meeting with communist party officials, a farmer asked: "What about the teeth in my head? Do I own those?" Answer: No. Your teeth belong to the collective.

              In theory, the government would take what the collective grew, and would also distribute food to each family. There was no incentive to work hard — to go out to the fields early, to put in extra effort, Yen Jingchang says.

              "Work hard, don't work hard — everyone gets the same," he says. "So people don't want to work."

              In Xiaogang there was never enough food, and the farmers often had to go to other villages to beg. Their children were going hungry. They were desperate.

            • 10 months ago

              @nellyj_misesian seems to me you’re confusing communism with socialism. Again.

            • 9 months ago

              @madmike "The goal of socialism IS Communism" (Lenin)
              Their is Very Very little difference between them. Your lack of knowledge of what either of then is is the actual issue here.

            • 9 months ago

              @madmike
              Ask somebody who grew up under socialism in its most true form
              https://youtu.be/qGYGm2CociQ

            • 9 months ago

              @nellyj_misesian you seem to stuck up on a particular version of socialism, apparently the only one you are familiar with. I’m sorry you can’t comprehend how someone can support socialist policies without seeking to reach full blown communism.

            • 9 months ago

              @madmike socialism is socialism. You can't just grab little pieces of this and that and slap them together and call it "socialism." Especially if you're going to badmouth capitalism without even knowing what that is.
              Socialism is Not 'free college' or 'free HC' or.... its government ownership of the means of production. Its very simple.

            • 9 months ago

              @nellyj_misesian you have a narrow and naive understanding of socialism. I expect better from an economist.

            • 9 months ago

              @nellyj_misesian https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100214/what-difference-between-communism-and-socialism.asp

              I'm really surprised you are making these statements.
              Even in it's old fashioned/ historic forms socialism and capitalism have tangible difference. But that's not even the point. Economic systems follow some general principles but they evolve as our societies do and even economists from the same school can and have expressed different valid views. It's a spectrum.. not black or white. Hence, we study the origins and the evolution of these systems.. Even at BS when we studied political & economic systems, we studied the EU crisis not Lenin and Marx. Most of Europe is socialist (across the spectrum) and you have tangible examples of its successful and not that successful application.

            • 9 months ago

              @madmike common intellectual dishonesty by socialist advocators who, immediately after the country becones 'socialist' and starts wasting the Capitalist-built resources and wealth, claims the "success of socialism," but upon the inevitable and quick failure of the socialistic policies when the capitalists' wealth runs out decry that "its notbreally socialism" having proven the failure of their claims post-changed them and suddenly change their claims of what is and isnt socialism and even varying their definitions of "spcialism" to fit whatever they can say looks good.
              Simply put, socialists praise socialism as it spends Capitalism's wealth then immediately change their tune as the money runs out and socialism inevitably FAILS because socialism CANNOT possibly work in any positive manner anywhere. Its 100% track record of failure in tge forms of starvation and mass murder when fully implimented is unquestionable.

            • 9 months ago

              @gigi socialism isn't some malleable term you can ascribe to whatever you think is pretty or looks good. you can't just grab certain things you like and call only them socialist, especially when the results of more implementation of those very policies Always results in worse economic conditions at which point socialists suddenly change their tune via the once proudly proclaimed "Venezuelan socialist success" that's suddenly became, "that's not real socialism."
              Socialism is well defined so if you're advocating for socialism you are advocating for that thing: Total tyranny, NO private property rights, complete ownership by the government (this is openly advocated for even by so called "democratic socialists" which nobody, not even BS, has defined). There are no other socialist examples.
              NO, Denmark and Norway are Not actually socialist and Denmark's PM even told Mr B.S. to "Stop badmouthing Denmark. Were a market economy.' Norway sells OIL around the world on the CAPITALIST Market to fund handouts to its tiny population and heavily subsidize Its Centrally planned failures.

            • 9 months ago

              Lets hear from the economically ignorant people themselves, the Democratic Socialists of America, who call for a "complete abolishion of Capitalism" and on their site:
              "We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.

              We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships."

              Abolishing Private profit means abolishing ALL Private property. And their drive for central planning is complete idiocy.
              20th century motor company

            • 9 months ago

              @nellyj_misesian

              “We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships."

              Sounds horrible lol

            • 9 months ago

              @nellyj_misesian Ok so a few things/ questions:
              - I mentioned evolution of politicosocioeconomic systems not abolition of their definitions... It's a spectrum not either or.
              - Can you please define in strict terms the capitalism/ free market and give me examples of successful application (using its strict definition and no deviations)
              - How would you define the European countries? Any one of them socialist?
              - How would you define the US?

              And just to quickly move fwd from the standard example of Venezula, I agree with you that if this is how you define socialism (corrupt government turned to dictatorship) then I agree that socialism sucks.

            • 9 months ago

              @gigi but That is how socialism Always Goes. We can sit around and dream up how the perfect societal socialist system would be then provide humans with the job and most importantly the Power to institute it and Venezuela is what would Always result.
              Socialism always FAILS because its very core beliefs are are so very absurdly wrong it could never possinly result in positive outcones.
              "Marxism [socialism] has not only failed to promote human freedom, it has failed to produce food." (John dos pasos)
              "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant been only an intellectual could ignore or invade it." (Sowell)

            • 9 months ago

              @gigi europe built a vast amount of wealth through capitalism then like every country wanted to redistribute it and spend it on social programs in a socialistic manner and its paying the price through a total economic stagnation where Europe would be a complete S-Hole (like the UK NIH and its anti-self defense laws) without the US's innovations and inventions. Europe creates literally NOTHING and has done so for decades.
              Capitalism is the private ownership of Property and the private reaping of profits and losses. The US is the most capitalistic nation but there is no pure market system. But we know for an unquestionable fact that more socialism brings poverty and More freedom in Markets brings prosperity. Just look at previously very socialist countries such as China, India and Thailand that were deep in abject poverty under socialism and have built vast wealth simply by bringing in market principles- mainly private property.

            • 9 months ago

              @nellyj_misesian I think we are now at the same page at least on the point that you were making about socialism in its original purest form. If you want to compare socialism in its purest form then you should use capitalism in its purest form; both disasters. The idea here is that as societies, political systems and economies evolve to use the main principles/ objectives of the traditional systems and improve the way they are implemented. e.g. for socialism, prosperity for the wider public (including some re-distribution for wealth). I love free market and I do think that increases transparency and competitiveness, this doesn't make me less socialist, just smarter :-)

            • 8 months ago

              @gigi the DSA calls for Socialism, "Democratic Socialism" IS SOCIALISM according to the Democratic Socialists of America
              lthestate ownership of businesses
              The NY Division ofthe DSA calls openly for the "end of all prisons, profits, borders"
              Portland division co chair said in a tweet "I want to set the record straight for a minute: Communism is good."
              They call for the government ownership of the means of production, an end to private businesses in major sectors (disasterous everywhere)

            • 8 months ago

              @gigi capitalism in its purest form would not be a disaster but would lead to the greatest amount of prosperity and human freedom. History proves that Socialism in any form inevitably leads to disaster and death.

            • 8 months ago

              @nellyj_misesian I really have no interest or respect about the US political parties.. I was hoping for a more intelligent exchange of opinions rather than an exchange of political quotes.

            • 8 months ago

              @nellyj_misesian I agree with you that capitalism in its purest form most probably will create the greatest amount of wealth..which will most probably end up at the hands of a few people. So if this is your objective then great. I advocate for the greatest amount of prosperity for the greatest amount of people hence this is our core difference. Two points:
              1) If we just focus on $$$ output, I care more about maximizing $/ person rather than absolute output of $$$ regardless of who gets the benefits
              2) Prosperity for humans is not just money and capital. It's much more complicated including safety, education, quality of life, environment etc.So we should be accounting for everything and not just output of $$$$

              So I am focusing more on the objective and then trying to find the best way to obtain e.g. I will use free market to make money, increase competitiveness and then use the benefits to provide my citizens with a minimum social safety net. How do you call that?

            • 8 months ago

              @gigi who is talking about political parties? The DSA is an organization seeking to advance the same ideals you are: socialism.

            • 8 months ago

              @gigi you say capitalism conglomerates wealth but there is absolutely no evidence of this and in fact history proves otherwise, that capitalism promotes the most wealth spread among the most people. Only government can centralize wealth in the hands of few.
              1- Capitalist countries unquestionably provide the greatest living standards for everybody including the poorest
              Spcialism creates the lowest living standards for the most people.
              2-market economies provide the greatest quality od life in every way. Socialism destroys environments because of the lack of private property and can only create safety at the saccrifice of freedom.
              There are no things where socialism is better.

            • 8 months ago

              @nellyj_misesian Sorry I thought this is essentially very much affiliated with the Democratic party?

            • 8 months ago

              @nellyj_misesian Any stats to support these claims?
              1- Greatest living of standards for a pure capitalistic country? Which country is this?
              2 - As mentioned, I am in favor of free market for the benefits of the society overall. So if there is no government intervention (which I agree that usually is very inefficient) to distribute wealth and provide a minimum social safety net how do you suggest that capitalism ensures better living standards for everyone?

              I think it's better to compare real life examples rather than theoretical labels of political systems i.e. countries that fell closer to the socialist ideals versus countries favoring more capitalism. If I am not mistaken, US has higher poverty rates compared to these rotten European countries?

            • 5 months ago

              @gigi THey do not have higher poverty rates when given a comparative static. USA has a larger base of poverty specifically because we have a higher GDP per capita. Second, the highest standards of living correlate with the level of market and banking freedom. For example, USA, the Nordic countries, etc.