Capitalism

[Blu·Ray]

Yes, I agree that those are socialist ideas. And I agree that there's good and bad in every system, and it is entirely possible to incorporate elements of every system. But as far as capitalism goes, I think it's the one system that gives an individual the most control over his or her own success or failure. On any other system, an individual's success or failure is dependent on how competently the people in power implemented it--i.e. factors that are beyond the individual's control.

For example, in my country, medicare and social security in particular are going bankrupt, and a lot of people entire their retirement years worried that their social security money will be gone or they won't get enough to live on. As for welfare, I think that it's a great thing to have when we have the money for it, but at the moment we don't and we're constantly having to borrow money in order to fund it. I'm sure this isn't the case in other countries, but still, the quality of healthcare/food benefits/retirement money people get is dependent on factors beyond the control of the individuals receiving them.

I don't believe that the socialistic ideal is wrong. The very idea of everyone having equal possibilities and equal rights seems really admirable to me, but the problem lies in the execution of socialistic ideals in the real world. People are greedy, people want to get as much as they can - be it power, money, or even prestige, and this makes a socialist world a terrible thing in practice. If you get the same benefits, the same money, and the same prestige from every possible job, who will choose tough jobs? Nobody! Therefore socialist states have had to force people into certain positions and force them to work. An ideal world to me would be socialistic. Definitely. But our world is far from ideal, and a true socialist state is not a viable option in our society.

On the other hand, I do believe that a true capitalist ideal is wrong. A system based purely on profits - feathering one's own nest - purely benefits the richest. I do not believe that a system that benefits only the strongest will make life better for the average person.

I don't think that we should devote ourselves to one particular belief, but rather try to find the golden mean. The system that we have here in Denmark - a welfare state solidly grounded in one of the highest tax percentages in the world - is, in my opinion, somewhere near that golden mean. A social security system that grants everybody the right to free healthcare. A system where even if you have lost your job, the state gives you enough money to keep living in your house and get food on the table. And every persons right to free education. Everybody should have the same possibilities, so that even the child of the poorest family will have the possibility to attend the best university in the country!
Our system is not a system where everybody is equal, but rather one where everybody has equal possibilities. As long as one does their best it doesn't make a difference whether one's parents were poor or rich. Everybody is able to shape their own future through an education system that is free, and gives you enough money while studying for one to focus on their study and end up in a better position.

 

[Kung Fu Ferret]

I despise capitalism, and it is dead and decaying, possibly evolving into fascism.
Corporate greed, all the politicians are either idiots or pure evil, and the exploitation of the proletariat et cetera. Ridiculously unfair... My hatred is justified. America needs a new revolution. Think back to Russia in 1917.

(Note: I am a communist, if you didn't know)

 

[Dakotah]

I despise capitalism, and it is dead and decaying, possibly evolving into fascism.
Corporate greed, all the politicians are either idiots or pure evil, and the exploitation of the proletariat et cetera. Ridiculously unfair... My hatred is justified. America needs a new revolution. Think back to Russia in 1917.

(Note: I am a communist, if you didn't know)

As a communist, what is your take on how various countries have implemented the system? What did they do right? What did they do wrong?

My problem with any system is that as soon as humans get their claws on it, they invariably will corrupt it.

 

[Kung Fu Ferret]

As a communist, what is your take on how various countries have implemented the system? What did they do right? What did they do wrong?

My problem with any system is that as soon as humans get their claws on it, they invariably will corrupt it.

Lenin came closest to perfecting the system, while Stalin pretty much did his own thing. Well, Stalin was still better than Obama and whatnot.

 

[Dakotah]

Lenin came closest to perfecting the system, while Stalin pretty much did his own thing. Well, Stalin was still better than Obama and whatnot.

I don't know that you can compare the two. They are (and were, in Stalin's case, since he is deceased) two different leaders with two completely different beliefs on what government is and does.

It is especially difficult to reconcile the atrocities committed by Stalin during his time in power and some how compare them to actions taken by the current President of the U.S. To date, I do not think any one has made the claim that Obama has sought the genocide of a people as Stalin did.

 

[Livewire]

Lenin came closest to perfecting the system, while Stalin pretty much did his own thing. Well, Stalin was still better than Obama and whatnot.

Assuming this isn't sarcastic


So the guy who sentenced 20 million of his own citizens to die in gulags in Siberia is somehow better than the guy who helped enact healthcare reform that covers millions of previously uninsured Americans. Because that makes sense.

Either way, no system of government is flawless, they all have strengths and weaknesses. That being said, you will find that the Scandinavian countries, like Denmark like Blu-Ray mentioned, have what's called a Hegelian dialectic - a synthesis of capitalist infrastructure with some "social" policies, for a "Social Democracy". Hard to ignore the results there.

 

[Kung Fu Ferret]

Assuming this isn't sarcastic


So the guy who sentenced 20 million of his own citizens to die in gulags in Siberia is somehow better than the guy who helped enact healthcare reform that covers millions of previously uninsured Americans. Because that makes sense.

Either way, no system of government is flawless, they all have strengths and weaknesses. That being said, you will find that the Scandinavian countries, like Denmark like Blu-Ray mentioned, have what's called a Hegelian dialectic - a synthesis of capitalist infrastructure with some "social" policies, for a "Social Democracy". Hard to ignore the results there.

Obama, IMHO, has done more bad than good . NSA, anyone? Also, healthcare should be free...

 

[Dakotah]

Obama, IMHO, has done more bad than good . NSA, anyone? Also, healthcare should be free...

The NSA issue you speak of was not a program put in place by the current President, contrary to the belief by some. Also, there isn't a healthcare system in the world that is free. It still has to be paid for, either out of pocket or through taxes. Canada's healthcare system is primarily paid for by all citizens through taxes. So while it's true no one has to pay out any money to a doctor during a visit, you've already paid for that visit through the taxes you've paid over the years.

 

[Blu·Ray]

Corporate greed, all the politicians are either idiots or pure evil, and the exploitation of the proletariat et cetera. Ridiculously unfair... My hatred is justified.

These things that you are pointing out are exactly what went wrong with communism in practice. I agree with you in that communism is a fantastic ideal. with everybody having enough money, but as others have pointed out already, it is human nature to be greedy. People in positions of power in the Soviet Union used their power to earn money. They were fighting towards their ideals of a communist state (Stalin was not really but that's a different story), but meanwhile they were all placing themselves and their family members in expensive houses while the average Joe could live in a shack.

As for the current American system, the impression I get is an overly capitalist society where money decides everything. If I was you, I would be happy to have Obama and not a republican, because at the very least Obama is working towards a system that is more fair in my opinion.

With the NSA, I assume that you are talking about the Prism Program which was, in fact, started under the Bush Administration in 2007.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

I believe that pure capitalism and pure communism fail for the same reason on a macroeconomic scale - you're putting too much power into a very few. Although capitalism doesn't start that way, it eventually develops that way. Socialism, which is not to be confused with Communism as it frequently is, is a better route, as both opposites will tug on each other enough to prevent too much power from being in one area. Finding that sweetspot is pretty difficult though.

Also, Obama is hardly a Communist. He's barely even a socialist. And if you're upset because health care isn't free and completely government subsidized, it should be reminded that the AHA had to be run through the entirety of congress, so it have to be cool with everyone who opposed it as well. It's very clear why it has limitations.

 

[Sir Codin]

Obama, IMHO, has done more bad than good.

While I'm not going to argue with this (you forgot to add: drone-striking, lying about people being able to keep their private health insurance, and accepting a noble peace prize just for not being Bush), communism still has failed so hard that it boggles my mind as to why anyone would still support it.

 

[The Void]

I believe that pure capitalism and pure communism fail for the same reason on a macroeconomic scale - you're putting too much power into a very few. Although capitalism doesn't start that way, it eventually develops that way. Socialism, which is not to be confused with Communism as it frequently is, is a better route, as both opposites will tug on each other enough to prevent too much power from being in one area. Finding that sweetspot is pretty difficult though.

I like this explanation. I'm all for democratic socialism.

Also, Obama is hardly a Communist. He's barely even a socialist. And if you're upset because health care isn't free and completely government subsidized, it should be reminded that the AHA had to be run through the entirety of congress, so it have to be cool with everyone who opposed it as well. It's very clear why it has limitations.

True. People should remember that the US government is not just the president but also the congress, so blaming Obama and Obama alone for healthcare that is twice as expensive as any other country doesn't make sense.

 

[Sir Codin]

Free healthcare is a laughable idea anyway because it's essentially an impossibility unless you have some sort of magical ability to create valuable currency out of thin air without messing up rates and can continually back up its value, which is in itself an impossibility. Or if you just plain don't give a hoot about sending the medical economy spiraling into the ground.

Whether paying for it up front or with taxes (as "free" healthcare usually totes), you're still paying for it.

 

[Kanzler]

I don't agree with that. Universal healthcare is just a funding model - instead of a free-for all, wealthier citizens subsidize healthcare for those poorer so nobody goes without. Lack of healthcare leads to suffering, disease, and death. Healthcare shouldn't be a luxury, but it will be treated as one as long as those who cannot afford it must go without.

 

[The Void]

Free healthcare is a laughable idea anyway because it's essentially an impossibility unless you have some sort of magical ability to create valuable currency out of thin air without messing up rates and can continually back up its value, which is in itself an impossibility. Or if you just plain don't give a hoot about sending the medical economy spiraling into the ground.

Whether paying for it up front or with taxes (as "free" healthcare usually totes), you're still paying for it.

The US government charges more than twice in taxes for healthcare than every country with government subsidized healthcare. I'll put up my sources tomorrow.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

I don't agree with that. Universal healthcare is just a funding model - instead of a free-for all, wealthier citizens subsidize healthcare for those poorer so nobody goes without. Lack of healthcare leads to suffering, disease, and death. Healthcare shouldn't be a luxury, but it will be treated as one as long as those who cannot afford it must go without.

Yeah, this is pretty much how I feel. A lot of arguments against government subsidized health care remind me of old arguments against things like public school and the sort.

What do you mean "old arguments?" Those same arguments are still in use today, and for the exact same issues too!

Well you do have a point there. I was specifically referring to the wealthy fighting against free education, but you know, you still hear that kind of stuff, just less with "free education" and more with "actually decent free education".

 

[Dakotah]

Yeah, this is pretty much how I feel. A lot of arguments against government subsidized health care remind me of old arguments against things like public school and the sort.

What do you mean "old arguments?" Those same arguments are still in use today, and for the exact same issues too!

 

[Atomic Pirate]

Capitalism doesn't work.

It just doesn't. History has proven that a capitalist system leads to the multinational corporations ruling the country. To all my fellow Americans, I simply ask you to look out your window if you want to see what capitalism causes. The corporations are buying off our politicians so they make laws that they like. Gun corporations buy off the system so that gun control doesn't happen. Oil companies buy the government out of creating environmental regulations so that they might not be able to keep destroying our fragile planet. This is what capitalism allows. There is no "American Dream": capitalism is too broken to allow a lower-class citizen to gain wealth and become rich; those who already possess the wealth are too greedy to let any of it go and will always crush the lower-class citizen before he/she can live out this "American Dream".

And thus the upper and upper-middle classes possess most of the wealth, while the lower classes are forced to live near poverty, unable to afford the bare essentials of living.

And yet when something as simple and as bare-minimum as a somewhat modern healthcare act is enacted, the richest Americans on the crazy right scream "SOCIALIST!!!" as if
a) that's a bad thing

and

b) a barely acceptable and heavily watered-down healthcare plan is automatically socialist just because it doesn't conform to the insane right's standards of unfettered corporate capitalism.

 

[Livewire]

So far, at least, American capitalism swings like a pendulum between extremes, you go from "gilded ages" with a small hyper-weathly elite back to heavy regulation and taxation then back to an unregulated system that produces another group of small, incredibly wealthy elites. The 1880's age of deregulation and the ridiculous wealth of the robber barons, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Rockafeller, etc., looks an awful lot like what we have today. Common-sense regulations, it's not that hard people.

 

[Kanzler]

Could the real issue then not be of America's capitalism, but America's democracy? And I'm not sure if America's got what it takes to make the pendulum swing again - iirc the last time the US taxed highly and brought inequality down was in the crucible of the Second World War.