The Political Fray - Political Forum
Go Back   Political Fray > The Political Fray > Economics

Economics For discussion about economics, financial markets, investing, stock markets, finance, and economic theory


Thanks Tree12Thanks
  • 1 Post By David
  • 1 Post By numan
  • 2 Post By numan
  • 2 Post By numan
  • 1 Post By David
  • 1 Post By numan
  • 2 Post By numan
  • 1 Post By numan
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 14th, 2017, 03:19 PM   #1
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

Capitalism and socialism.

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.
Thanks from El VetoVoter
David is offline  
Old January 15th, 2017, 04:38 PM   #2
Senator
 
numan's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Victoria, BC
Posts: 950

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
Socialism is AWESOME, until they run out of other people's money!!!
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.
.
Thanks from Derideo Te
numan is offline  
Old January 15th, 2017, 05:26 PM   #3
Senator
 
numan's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Victoria, BC
Posts: 950

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
You may as well kiss your ass goodbye if you get sick under socialized medicine, as rationed and crappy it is.
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.
.
numan is offline  
Old January 18th, 2017, 03:54 PM   #4
Senator
 
numan's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Victoria, BC
Posts: 950

'
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.
.
numan is offline  
Old January 18th, 2017, 04:39 PM   #5
Senator
 
numan's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Victoria, BC
Posts: 950

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
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?!
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.
.
Thanks from David and Derideo Te
numan is offline  
Old January 19th, 2017, 03:10 PM   #6
Senator
 
numan's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Victoria, BC
Posts: 950

'
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.
.
Thanks from David and El VetoVoter
numan is offline  
Old February 11th, 2017, 08:33 PM   #7
Analyst
 
El VetoVoter's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Sonora Desert
Posts: 30

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...
El VetoVoter is offline  
Old February 11th, 2017, 10:18 PM   #8
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by El VetoVoter View Post
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...
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.
Thanks from Derideo Te
David is offline  
Old February 16th, 2017, 07:49 PM   #9
Senator
 
numan's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Victoria, BC
Posts: 950

We Are Way Beyond 1984 Now!

'
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
.
Thanks from tecoyah
numan is offline  
Old February 17th, 2017, 06:35 AM   #10
Secretary of State
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 3,456

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
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?! )
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.
tecoyah is offline  
Old February 17th, 2017, 06:44 AM   #11
Secretary of State
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 3,456

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
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?!
Okay....then instead face the Fact he has more losses than profit as a businessman and has bankrupted many of his ventures jilting his workers and banks. What a great representation of quality leadership.
tecoyah is offline  
Old February 17th, 2017, 07:30 AM   #12
Secretary of State
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 3,456

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
Only for a relatively small percentage of the time he has been in business. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your perspective), you can spread a loss (or gain!) over many more years than they occurred. I have done this MYSELF as totally a middle class person. It was called "Income Averaging". One year I somehow had a much larger than nominal taxable income, so luckily I could spread it out over several years, and NOT be hit nearly as hard with taxes.
It is obvious you will excuse whatever he does or has done so this conversation is pointless...Have A Nice Day
tecoyah is offline  
Old February 17th, 2017, 09:38 AM   #13
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by numan View Post
'
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
.
But that's not socialism (by definition worker control). That's just plain, old fashioned olarachy.

It's should be noted that Orwell was a democratic socialist (not to be confused with social democrats) and wrote dark political satire. 1984 was an attack on the Nazis, the 'socialism' was ironic and not an honest example of socialist policies. Animal Farm in turn was an attack on the state capitalism of Stalin's 'communism'. Why people take his writings at face value is something that has baffled me since HS. Did nobody else realize it was satire? I know people tend to sleep thru English lit and history classes but really now...
David is offline  
Old February 17th, 2017, 06:18 PM   #14
Senator
 
numan's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Victoria, BC
Posts: 950

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
It's should be noted that Orwell was a democratic socialist (not to be confused with social democrats) and wrote dark political satire. 1984 was an attack on the Nazis, the 'socialism' was ironic and not an honest example of socialist policies. Animal Farm in turn was an attack on the state capitalism of Stalin's 'communism'.
You are correct about Animal Farm, but not about 1984.

To repeat, 1984 was an allegory about ALL modern forms of government, that is the reason for its title; Orwell wrote it in 1948 and switched the last two digits to make it seem as though it was about the future --- it is about all forms of government which exploit the people through totalitarianism, mass indoctrination and fear, and so it is just as much about the United States as it is about any other modern society.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
.
numan is offline  
Old February 19th, 2017, 01:34 PM   #15
Senator
 
numan's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Victoria, BC
Posts: 950

Quote:
Originally Posted by numan View Post
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
.
Obviously, for a certain literal-minded person, I should have written:

SARCASM ALERT! ---

Dicta are from 1984, and our rulers do everything in their power to put them into political, social and economic practice.
.
Thanks from tecoyah and Aufgeblassen
numan is offline  
Old March 1st, 2017, 03:49 PM   #16
Senator
 
numan's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Victoria, BC
Posts: 950

'
Those who think they know more about economics than they actually do might find the work of Joseph Stiglitz interesting:

Joseph Stiglitz

Quote:
Traditional neoclassical economics literature assumes that markets are always efficient except for some limited and well defined market failures. More recent studies by Stiglitz and others reverse that presumption: It is only under exceptional circumstances that markets are efficient. Stiglitz has shown (together with Bruce Greenwald) that "whenever markets are incomplete and /or information is imperfect (which are true in virtually all economies), even competitive market allocation is not constrained Pareto efficient". In other words, there almost always exists schemes of government intervention which can induce Pareto superior outcomes, thus making everyone better off. Although these conclusions and the pervasiveness of market failures do not necessarily warrant the state intervening broadly in the economy, it makes clear that the "optimal" range of government recommendable interventions is definitely much larger than the traditional "market failure" school recognizes. For Stiglitz there is no such thing as an "invisible hand"....

In Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy (2010), Stiglitz discusses the causes of the 2008 recession/depression and goes on to propose reforms needed to avoid a repetition of a similar crisis, advocating government intervention and regulation in a number of areas....

This book does not require an economics background in order to be of value to the reader. Rather it explains Mr. Stiglitz's views on the recent economic crisis in terms which make it relevant to the average homeowner, retirement investor, and voter in the United States. He explains how without fundamental changes in economic policy and regulation the position of the US in the world political and economic arena may deteriorate significantly.
Here is the text of an interview of Stiglitz by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now:

Stiglitz

.
Thanks from tecoyah
numan is offline  
Reply

  Political Fray > The Political Fray > Economics

Tags
capitalism , socialism



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Conservative Socialism (Yes it's a thing!) David Philosophy 1 July 22nd, 2016 06:26 PM
Capitalism in the Real World vs. Capitalism in an Ivory Tower charleslb Economics 26 June 23rd, 2011 11:47 AM
Socialism is profitable! David Economics 28 October 13th, 2009 07:29 PM
Whats wrong with Socialism? Jlk311 Government and Politics 7 February 12th, 2009 07:06 AM
Fall of Capitalism? Akuma Economics 14 February 5th, 2009 09:08 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2009-2013 Political Fray. All rights reserved.