Capitalism vs Socialism

jjlandlord

Most countries in Europe as they stand today have been influenced by socialist ideas.

Pitching capitalism v. socialism in the way this thread does is the degree zero of politics, and gives the wrong impression.

It is true that capitalism has shown to be the most effective system to produce economic wealth.
However, it has little to do with democracy, liberty, fairness, etc.

On the other hand, each 'communist country' also suffer from the dictatorial regime that installed the system and holds on to it.
Does that mean that all socialist ideas are to be rubbished? the NHS is a rather socialist idea after all.

Another interesting point to make is that many 'communist countries' became so because of capitalist-based aggressions.

A case in point is Cuba: If the Americans had work to promote development instead of installing a corrupt regime to serve their capitalist interests Cuba would probably never have sided with Castro.
The situation today in Cuba is also due to the embargo.

The world is not black and white like an American movie.

The key conclusions from these experiments, in my view are that:
- a plannified economy does not work because it is far too complex to hope to control in such way.
- preventing people from creating something of their own and work for they own benefit ignores deep human impulses and will end up being extremely negative for the economy and society as a whole.

antrobus

N1AK wrote: »

Great, perhaps you can now explain why capitalism has made Somalia a better country than Sweden? At least that would actually be insightful if you can manage it

I believe that Somalia's current predicament has something to do with the fact that, under the name of the Somali Democratic Republic, it was a communist state between 1969 and 1991.

In any case, capitalism has clearly made Sweden a better country than Somalia.:)

Generali

N1AK wrote: »

Somalia is more capitalist than North Korea is communist.

I'll stick to defining capitalist like most of the world does:





You can keep making up your own definition if you like, but you may have some trouble getting it accepted.

Spouting assertions don't make you right.

antrobus

jjlandlord wrote: »

....The key conclusions from these experiments, in my view are that:
- a plannified economy does not work because it is far too complex to hope to control in such way.
- preventing people from creating something of their own and work for they own benefit ignores deep human impulses and will end up being extremely negative for the economy and society as a whole.

The Bolshevik heresy that is the State Capitalist model has been shown to be a failure.

Time to move on, I feel. We know what doesn't work, let's try something else.:)

Loughton_Monkey

antrobus wrote: »

.....Time to move on, I feel. We know what doesn't work, let's try something else.:)

I thought we were! Our 'democratic' system of government has been in the process of change to a 'Nanny State' for years. It is a system that tries to protect the people and control their lives in a way that prevents them being independent.

On the assumption that no clear result will [can] come from the May election, this gives us great opportunity to do as you suggest and try something else.

One option would be pure dictatorship. In fact we are perfectly placed to do this because we already have an unequivocal dictator in the form of Her Majesty the Queen. She has the right to rule, but so far chooses to avoid personal decisions and allow an elected government to rule. Well just get rid of Westminster. Get rid of Councils. All UK military and marshal powers can report directly to the Queen who will raise taxes, spend the money how she wishes, set out a strict system of law and have it enforced by her personal representatives.

If this doesn't work, the logical next step would be for Her Majesty to 'call it a day', put all her money into gold and exile herself to the Caymens, leaving the UK without any form or system of government so that we can descend into anarchy.

Another option might be to 'privatise' government. Let's put it out to tender. See if (for example) Obama, or Merkel, or Tony Abbot - even Kim Jong-Un - can offer to run the country at a lower cost.

Finally, may I suggest the strategy of doing a U-Turn on Europe. Let's negotiate to accelerate the United States of Europe so that we can quickly become a mere impotent state of Europe, ruled 100% from Brussels? Who knows? By some rotational scheme or in-fighting, Nigel Farage might one day become President of the 'Country' of Europe. No beer tax. We can all smoke in pubs again. Zero immigration from outside Europe.

All these choices........

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

Spouting assertions don't make you right.

I agree, you've been ably demonstrating it since the start of your first post in this thread.

All this thread has done is shown that people invariably pick the worst possible examples of states that they think they can label as having the viewpoint they oppose, and that the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy will be used to try and dismiss arguments by those on the other side doing the same.

One side says: North Korea proves COMMUNISM bad, Somalia isn't a proper CAPITALIST state so doesn't count.

The other says: North Korea isn't a proper COMMUNIST state so doesn't count, Somalia proves CAPITALISM doesn't work.

No one is any better informed, everyone decides arbitrarily that they obviously won the 'debate', and it's G&Ts and pats on the back all round.

Graham_Devon

Not sure if this is a fair comparison to be honest.

Surely the biggest issue for North Korea isn't socialism, but the fierce dictatorship that runs it?

The political aspect has taken the financial aspect (socialism) to a completely different level. I don't think it's really fair to use it as any type of yardstick.

N1AK

antrobus wrote: »

I believe that Somalia's current predicament has something to do with the fact that, under the name of the Somali Democratic Republic, it was a communist state between 1969 and 1991.

Whereas someone who wanted to prove that CAPITALISM was at fault would highlight that:
> Somalia had a very rough time of things when we Brits left
> That Somalia did very well under-communism/military dictatorship for an extended period
> That their invasion of Ethiopian territory which set them against the USSR and forced them towards the USA was the start of their collapse.
> Somalia was still a better place to live in 1991 (worst point under communism) that it has been since.

Personally I think communism vs capitalism has almost nothing to do with it. Somalia, and east Africa generally, are a product of the end of colonial rule and the cold war powers interference.

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not sure if this is a fair comparison to be honest.

Surely the biggest issue for North Korea isn't socialism, but the fierce dictatorship that runs it?

The political aspect has taken the financial aspect (socialism) to a completely different level. I don't think it's really fair to use it as any type of yardstick.

Yes, but it is not possible to have any kind of 'socialism' in the North Korean, or Cuban, Soviet, whatever sense, without having a dicatatorship. The state's monopoly of economic activity can only be achieved by denying everyone else the freedom to engage in economic activity, which demands dictatorship.

antrobus

N1AK wrote: »

I agree, you've been ably demonstrating it since the start of your first post in this thread.....

You mean the first post that began by saying that;

Generali wrote: »

South Korea has GDP of $1,305,000,000,000, North Korea's is $12,380,000,000 despite South Korea having only double the population of her northern neighbour....

I think that's what we call 'data' rather than 'assertion'.

Do you think those figures are wrong in any meaningful way? You could have a look at the Wiki list of countries by PPP GDP per capita if you like, and trace the data back to their sources, and I think you'll find that the argument being made is indeed correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita