David

I was just thinking about how the typical person doesn't really understand the dynamic between these 2 so I've decided to offer a basic rundown of what the 2 ideas represent in historical terms.

Both capitalism and socialism arose at the same time, revolutionary movements during the Renaissance as the common people sought to bring down their often tyrannical overlords. Unlike today revolutionary capitalism and revolutionary socialism, while offering different means, promoted the same end: Popular liberation. Because of this lack of distinction and the fact that capitalism prompted greater wealth, elevating its leaders to greater prominence, capitalism became the goto for revolutionaries of the late Renaissance while socialism fell to the wayside, supported largely by fringe anarchists, commonly known as communists.

Then the Industrial Revolution happened and revolutionary capitalism gave way to the post revolutionary capitalism we know today, an economic model motivated by the quest for profit by those with capital. This gave rise to an initially slow but exponentially increasing centralization of wealth. By the 19th Century this had become sufficiently obvious to leave revolutionary socialism as the only clear liberating ideology. This is the point at which those without a familiarity with economic history generally think of as the birth of socialism. The term communism also fell out of use at this time.

In the 20th Century revolutionary socialism gave way to post revolutionary socialism as it was applied to the real (now industrialized) world. Unlike capitalism, post revolutionary socialism diverged into 2 branches, each manifesting popular will into a central authority. The 1st branch (the dominant form of socialism in the 20th Century) placed the will of the common people in the hands of the state. These socialists resurrected the term communism and repurposed it for themselves. This form of socialism gave governments an economic monopoly, leading to rigid control economies and the massive temptation of absolute power. On paper the more efficient of the 2 post revolutionary branches, absolute power corrupts absolutely and these governments inevitably became as bad as the worst capitalist societies. The 2nd branch (the most dominant form of socialism today) placed the will of the people in the hands of business. Ironically considering his influence in the other variant, Marx was 1 of the earliest advocates for this form of socialism and it can most obviously be seen in action today in Scandinavia. This form of socialism doesn't allow for a monopoly on power and promotes a free market economy which in turn allows a socialist economy to work alongside rather in isolation of capitalism. Unlike their capitalist counterparts, socialist businesses are motivated not by the profit motive but by the enrichment of the workforce who control (thu representation or direct ownership) the businesses.

Aufgeblassen

Yeah, capitalism liberates one from poverty with reasonable effort on one's part, while communism/socialism liberates you from wealth, no matter how much you to attempt to have a reasonable amount!!! - hello!? THOSE are the differences in a nutshell.

Aufgeblassen

Socialism is AWESOME, until they run out of other people's money!!!

numan

That cliché obviously does not apply to the social democracies one finds in Canada, Europe, and many other parts of the world.

All objective socialist analyses recognize quite openly the power of capitalism and the society changing events which it has unleashed --- both bad and good.

However, modern capitalism has taken on many worrying characteristics: crony capitalism, totalitarian transnational monopolies which have dangerous power for corruption, the concentration of vast wealth into fewer and fewer hands, the predominance of financial capitalism over productive capitalism, the control of the Military-Industrial Complex by war profiteers, the concentration of the Main Stream Media by very few owners, and so on.

If this continues, capitalism will destroy itself, and we have nothing yet to replace it.
.

Aufgeblassen

You may as well kiss your ass goodbye if you get sick under socialized medicine, as rationed and crappy it is.

numan

Your comment indicates a complete lack of knowledge about the Canadian medical insurance system.

I know, from personal experience, that it is just as crappy as American medicine --- but at least it is free !

I joke that it is worth every cent I pay for it ! ---

But at least if I have a broken arm or some other accident, I will have no financial worries.

Otherwise, I avoid hospitals like the plague. I regard them, both in Canada and in the USA as genocide mills. If anyone doubts that, just Google iatrogenic causes of death.

Big Pharma, the Medical Mafia, and MONEY rule modern medicine, not the Hippocratic Oath.
.

Aufgeblassen

I know from personal experience how crappy it was 45 years ago, and how crappy it is very, very recently ago!!!

When we lived in B.C. in the early 70's, my mother was going BLIND. Doctors had not a clue what was going on. They even sent her to UBC, but they too had not any clue what was going on. The very best Canuck doctors could do was say "quit smoking".

It merely took a move back to the the good ole U.S.A., for doctors to easily and quickly find she simply had CATARACTS!!! They removed them, and her vision was as good as new.

WAY more recently, we visited B.C. in the summer of 2013. We found a cousin of mine had a botched simple cataract surgery. While removing cataract, they found that they did not have a suitable size/shape replacement lens for his eye, so they sewed his eye back up, put a patch on, and told him to come back someday when they have the correct lens. SUCH BUFFOONERY WOULD BE TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE IN THE U.S.A.!!!

numan

'
Yeah, the Canadian system is bad, and so is the US system --- if you can call it a "system".

They are both run for the benefit of Big Pharma and the Medical Mafia. The only question is who pays those bloated monsters their larcenous profits.
.

Aufgeblassen

No, the U.S, version is leaps and bounds BETTER!!! You here about many coming to U.S. from Canada so they won't while waiting, so they won't DIE before they actually get any care, but NOT visa versa - hello?!

numan

Mere patriotic puffery --- not based on facts.

Many Americans come to Canada for medical reasons --- many to buy low priced drugs which they can get only at inflated prices in the US.
.

Aufgeblassen

They don't need to cross the border. Canadian pharmacies are located within the U.S. Thereby you be wrong!

I tried E.D. drugs from India, and they don't work either!

numan

'
If we look at history, periods of relative freedom and social mobility are associated with expanding economies, innovation and something like a middle class. When expansion slows and stops, resources become scarce and the elites gobble them up. A small, entrenched ruling class forms, and the rest of the population are serfs, or worse. Innovation declines, and social stagnation reigns.

This is the normal situation of post-Neolithic humanity -- a life and culture not to be envied. Ancient Greek society, Tang and Sung dynasty China, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution are the exception to the normal, dismal state of mankind. With declining resources, over-population and transnational monopoly we are clearly well into Dismal Normalacy.

The Joker in the pack is Global Heating and the present Mass Extinction Event. To switch metaphors, it is a whole new ball game. There will be a dramatic transformation which will sweep away the patterns of the past.

I am skeptical that the result will be positive, or even endurable, let alone survivable.
.

Aufgeblassen

El VetoVoter

David, I found your explanation of Capitalism and Socialism to be quite informative and well written. I would appreciate your permission to use it in my future writings, with appropriate credit given, of course.

It is important to know the beginnings of things when trying to figure out what they have become and why and how...

David

Sure. Most people don't realize that quite a few of America's Founding Fathers (the ones that came in after the bankers and plantation owners started shit and were actually in it for democracy) were socialists. I mean Thomas Paine was left of Marx. Not that the revisionts on the right would admit as much.

Aufgeblassen

WERE is the KEY word! They saw the light, and decided to go a much improved route!!!

numan

'
George Orwell described the nature of all modern forms of government in his allegorical novel, 1984. His term for this form of government was oligarchical socialism.

"Oligarchical Socialism" is in fact the form of social control exercised in the USA since the end of World War II; it replaced the laissez faire capitalism that came before it.

Socialism can be defined as the providing of certain human needs by the state instead of by the private sector. These needs can be health care, education, or just general financial support to promote the general welfare of the society.

Oligarchical Socialism, on the other hand, provides these same support mechanisms but to a very limited number of recipients, usually called "The Upper Classes", and it uses the combined resources of the society to provide those needs.

In other words, while only a small number of individuals (government, business, special groups) are receiving these benefits, the collective mass of society pays for them. You pay, but don't get anything in return.

If this system seems unfair, it's because it is; but it is successful, having tranferred most of the wealth and power of the society to roughly 1% of the top families. The mechanisms that perform this feat are the forces of taxation, subsidization, tokenization of wealth and regulation which can be used by those that control the government to direct the collective wealth into their hands.

On first sight, one would expect that this system would fail because of the unfairness of the system to the people who are doing the work which creates the wealth of the society. Ordinarily this is true, but this system needs to have only one ability in order to survive its apparent dilemma: that is the ability to propagandize the laboring masses into thinking the system works for them.

Ours is the most effective system of indoctrination ever created because it relies on the fullfillment of subconscious desires in the human mind. It was carefully crafted by Freud's disciple Bernays in the 1920's through what is now known as "Public Relations" and has replaced religion as the most successful form of social control.


[In America] we have socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.
---- Gore Vidal
.

Aufgeblassen

LOL!!! What a doofus (Blood Vidal). I'd like to see a list of FREE STUFF that the rich get from the gov't., similar to the NUMEROUS handouts the poor get. Just the OPPOSITE. They are burdened with MUCH higher taxes; 5X, 10X, 50X OR WAY MORE times the amount the median taxpayer pays. Needs to change!

The well off don't get nearly FROM the gov't. they GIVE to the gov't., while the poor get WAY more from the gov't. than they give ( if they give ANY at all! - hello?! )

tecoyah

You may at some point need to face the fact that your man crush has admitted to paying no taxes....now if it were Bill Gates/Warren Buffet you might have a point.

Aufgeblassen

When you have losses that are the same or greater than gains, then the taxes are 0% or -XX%. Because taxes are proportional (and unfortunately exponential) to gains. Taxes 101 - hello?!