dduncan4163
Have at it Hoss
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2006
- Messages
- 21,964
- Likes
- 46,012
There has been a idelogical war going on in this country for some time now. The war of Capitalism vs Socialism.
The Far Left sees Capitalism as a system that consolidates money and power to a select few without giving the majority of society a far chance at wealth and success.
The Far Right sees Socialism as a system that leads to the destruction of individual wealth for the greater good of the society.
Lets go over the Pros and Cons of both and find out if we are a Capitalist society, or a Socialist society, or Both.
Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth and the ability to produce wealth are privately owned (rather than owned and controlled by the government). The distinguishing feature of capitalism is that each individual in a society owns his or her labor and therefore is allowed to sell the use of it to an employer. They are in turn paid a wage and are free to spend that wage as they see fit. Laissez-faire (French for, "Leave to do (by itself)") is the purest form of capitalism, in which the government does not get involved in any aspect of the economy or the competitive process to produce wealth. The supply and demand of what customers choose to do with their money controls what businesses succeed and fail and provides for all of a society’s needs.
The up side of capitalism is that there is the potential for any member in a capitalist society to give of his or her labor to sell a product or service (or work for a company selling a product or service) that will in turn produce a large amount of personal wealth. Again, in a purely capitalist economy this citizen would not have to pay any taxes and there would be virtually no need for a government as private industries would satisfy all needs of the people and provide all products and services for a functioning society.
The down side of capitalism is that, A) It puts a great deal of power in the hands of those citizens most capable of producing wealth. For example, private companies would compete in building, training, and arming a standing military to defend a nation, with the potential for a nation to have multiple militaries run by multiple companies, all of which would be completely unregulated by a governing body and free to defend the nation as they see fit. B) Pure capitalism does not account for the social aspects of a nation that do not make a profit. For example, there is no demand for a business to take care of the mentally and physically disabled and those citizens impaired in some facet which prevents him or her from being able to work and thus unable to offer money for his or her care. C) Pure capitalism also allows individuals to pass wealth freely from generation to generation within one’s own family creating large class divides within a society as the strongest and most capable citizens grow stronger and wealthier and the least capable citizens have less and less opportunities to gain wealth. D) It does not account for racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia (dislike or fear of someone different than oneself) or other social barriers that might make for unfair competition in the pursuit of wealth.
Booms and Busts: In the last one hundred years of United States history whenever a government administration has deregulated the economy in an attempt to move it toward a laissez-faire capitalist approach, an enormous bust in the economy was soon to follow. In the 1920s Calvin Coolridge was a small government capitalist who deregulated much of the economy and cut many government programs. The Great Depression followed eight months after he left office. In an uncanny replay of history George W. Bush continuously deregulated the economy during his eight years in office, and ended up nationalizing several failed lending institutions within his final months in office. The second largest recession in U.S. history followed. Capitalist proponents suggest that busts are a natural part of a free market economy and have always been followed by booms. While this is true that free market economies have natural booms and busts, such a method creates an incredibly unstable society for the poor and middle classes, while the upper classes tend to accumulate enough wealth to buffer themselves against these busts and move comfortably into the next economic boom—facilitating further the isolation of wealth as discussed above.
How Democracy Effects Capitalism: Because pure capitalism is likely to create isolated wealth in the hands of the most capable, the middle and lower classes of democratic societies are likely to vote for leaders who will regulate the economy in such a way so that they will continue to have their basic needs met by socially funded systems during difficult times and not be left to potentially starve or die without work, shelter, food, or healthcare. At least this has been the trend in other democratic societies with mixed economies. For unclear reasons, over the last thirty years middle and lower class Americans have not voted for greater social systems despite the fact that they would be paid for by higher taxation on the wealth that has been isolated in the upper 1% of American wealth holders.
Hypotheses for this occurrence include the stronghold of religious culture and puritan work ethic that has been consistent in American history linked to the belief that the upper 1% did not accumulate wealth because of a deregulated capitalist economic system but rather “out worked” the competition to achieve their wealth. Thus, taxing the wealthy more to pay for more social benefits would not be considered balancing the competitive playing field but rather stealing from the hard workers of society. Another theory is that the upper 1% owns much of the industry in America and if they are taxed too highly they may take their businesses somewhere else, leaving the country with less overall wealth (even though it is isolated wealth and not being used for public services). A third theory is that lower and middle class citizens believe they will one day be wealthy too and when they are, they would like to not pay higher taxes for services that take care of the poor. Finally, it could be that the conservative party has combined religious and family value rhetoric into their political platform in the time period from 1980 to present day and have won the support of the middle and lower classes by appealing to their religious worldviews (despite the separation of church and state that prevents politicians from legislating or enforcing religious ideology in government). Whatever the reason, it is an anomaly amongst industrialized nations that America has the most capitalist democratic society in the world today. It is still a mixed economy and long term trends suggest it to be moving toward a greater balance in socialism and capitalism, though at present day the United States.
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian (equal for all people) method of compensation.
There is no concrete method to a socialist economy. It is an idea that came out of the late 19th century in which intellectuals and working class citizens began to see capitalism as unfairly concentrating power and wealth in the hands of a small segment of society who controlled the capital and did not offer fair opportunities for everyone in the society. Socialist proponents disagree on the degree to which the government should control the economy of a nation, and over what services should be provided by the state (and paid for through taxation of the people) and what should be the responsibility of the people. What they agree on is that the government must be involved in some facets of the economy in order to make a society fair and balanced in the opportunities it provides to produce wealth, meet the needs of its citizenry, and avoid the development of large class divides that could lead to social upheaval within a society.
The up side to socialism is that it theoretically fosters a communal effort amongst the members of a society to take care of the basic needs of all members in a society from the moment they are born until they pass away. This economic system takes into account, or leaves opportunity to take into account, such social problems as racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia (fear of people unlike one’s self) and other social barriers that create an unfair competition for the production of wealth. It also asserts that younger members of society as well as elderly members and members suffering from physical and mental ailments are relatively incapable of competing for the production of wealth and must be taken care of by the whole of society. Other aspects of society that are unlikely to produce financial wealth such as public health and environmental threat monitoring, academic research, creation of cures, education, healthcare for low-income members of society, environmental conservation and ecosystem protection practices, care of wild and domesticated animals, law enforcement, fire department, military, postal services, creation of arts and literature, etc. can be considered in a socialist economic system and provided funding for by the state through taxation of the people.
The down side to socialism is that, in nations without free and democratic elections, it can easily lend itself to tyranny (or complete governmental control of a society). This was the case in Stalinist Soviet Union in the early 20th century. In such a situation, whoever seizes control of the government and the military of a nation can, by force, require members of society to work or not work as the government sees fit. This can stifle industry, limit individual’s potential for the production of wealth, and ultimately harm the nation economically if poorly executed. It also takes away the freedom of choice from the members of society to decide for themselves how long they will work and how much wealth they will produce for themselves. For example, the government could theoretically decide that a sixty-hour work week would produce greater wealth for society and instate mandatory sixty-hour work weeks with 100% taxation. Thus, all members of a nation would be required to work the required amount of time in a field decided by the government and receive in return only the products and services the government deems worthy of ownership by the individual. This is the much feared bread-lines that are often discussed when socialism is brought up in America.
How Democracy Effects Socialism: In a society with free and democratically held elections the above scenario literally cannot take place against the will of the people. Even if a president attempted to instate such practices and was able to convince an elected congress to agree with him or her, a nation with a democratic electoral system such as the United States would still be able to change the members of congress every two years and the presidential leader every four years. Thus, socialism in the form as it was seen in Stalinist Soviet Union cannot exist in conjunction with democracy, only with tyranny. In the same way, capitalism also cannot exist in its purest form and allow the accumulation of wealth to exist only amongst the most capable members of society. As wealth begins to accumulate amongst an isolated group in a democratic society, the members of society can choose to elect representatives that will change taxation and legislation to provide for more social products and services to meet the needs of the whole of society and take away opportunities for private industries to produce more wealth amongst an isolated group. Therefore, a mixed economy is what has been found to work best, and is the type of economic system that has existed in the United States since its beginning days.
Socialism has become a naughty word in America, but how many people actually know what this political ideology entails? Many confuse it with communism, which is Karl Marx’s political ideology for a classless, stateless, and democratic society free of oppression. Others recall Joseph Stalin’s iron-fisted tyrannical government in the Soviet Union during World War II era, in which he used government to rule nearly every facet of life in the country. What many don’t realize is that the United States, as well as most industrialized nations of the world, functions under a mixed economy, meaning some aspects of capitalism and some of socialism.
The Fact is we are a mixed economy in America as well as most of the free world.
In my opinion America has come up with the perfect blend of the two political systems.
The Far Left sees Capitalism as a system that consolidates money and power to a select few without giving the majority of society a far chance at wealth and success.
The Far Right sees Socialism as a system that leads to the destruction of individual wealth for the greater good of the society.
Lets go over the Pros and Cons of both and find out if we are a Capitalist society, or a Socialist society, or Both.
Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth and the ability to produce wealth are privately owned (rather than owned and controlled by the government). The distinguishing feature of capitalism is that each individual in a society owns his or her labor and therefore is allowed to sell the use of it to an employer. They are in turn paid a wage and are free to spend that wage as they see fit. Laissez-faire (French for, "Leave to do (by itself)") is the purest form of capitalism, in which the government does not get involved in any aspect of the economy or the competitive process to produce wealth. The supply and demand of what customers choose to do with their money controls what businesses succeed and fail and provides for all of a society’s needs.
The up side of capitalism is that there is the potential for any member in a capitalist society to give of his or her labor to sell a product or service (or work for a company selling a product or service) that will in turn produce a large amount of personal wealth. Again, in a purely capitalist economy this citizen would not have to pay any taxes and there would be virtually no need for a government as private industries would satisfy all needs of the people and provide all products and services for a functioning society.
The down side of capitalism is that, A) It puts a great deal of power in the hands of those citizens most capable of producing wealth. For example, private companies would compete in building, training, and arming a standing military to defend a nation, with the potential for a nation to have multiple militaries run by multiple companies, all of which would be completely unregulated by a governing body and free to defend the nation as they see fit. B) Pure capitalism does not account for the social aspects of a nation that do not make a profit. For example, there is no demand for a business to take care of the mentally and physically disabled and those citizens impaired in some facet which prevents him or her from being able to work and thus unable to offer money for his or her care. C) Pure capitalism also allows individuals to pass wealth freely from generation to generation within one’s own family creating large class divides within a society as the strongest and most capable citizens grow stronger and wealthier and the least capable citizens have less and less opportunities to gain wealth. D) It does not account for racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia (dislike or fear of someone different than oneself) or other social barriers that might make for unfair competition in the pursuit of wealth.
Booms and Busts: In the last one hundred years of United States history whenever a government administration has deregulated the economy in an attempt to move it toward a laissez-faire capitalist approach, an enormous bust in the economy was soon to follow. In the 1920s Calvin Coolridge was a small government capitalist who deregulated much of the economy and cut many government programs. The Great Depression followed eight months after he left office. In an uncanny replay of history George W. Bush continuously deregulated the economy during his eight years in office, and ended up nationalizing several failed lending institutions within his final months in office. The second largest recession in U.S. history followed. Capitalist proponents suggest that busts are a natural part of a free market economy and have always been followed by booms. While this is true that free market economies have natural booms and busts, such a method creates an incredibly unstable society for the poor and middle classes, while the upper classes tend to accumulate enough wealth to buffer themselves against these busts and move comfortably into the next economic boom—facilitating further the isolation of wealth as discussed above.
How Democracy Effects Capitalism: Because pure capitalism is likely to create isolated wealth in the hands of the most capable, the middle and lower classes of democratic societies are likely to vote for leaders who will regulate the economy in such a way so that they will continue to have their basic needs met by socially funded systems during difficult times and not be left to potentially starve or die without work, shelter, food, or healthcare. At least this has been the trend in other democratic societies with mixed economies. For unclear reasons, over the last thirty years middle and lower class Americans have not voted for greater social systems despite the fact that they would be paid for by higher taxation on the wealth that has been isolated in the upper 1% of American wealth holders.
Hypotheses for this occurrence include the stronghold of religious culture and puritan work ethic that has been consistent in American history linked to the belief that the upper 1% did not accumulate wealth because of a deregulated capitalist economic system but rather “out worked” the competition to achieve their wealth. Thus, taxing the wealthy more to pay for more social benefits would not be considered balancing the competitive playing field but rather stealing from the hard workers of society. Another theory is that the upper 1% owns much of the industry in America and if they are taxed too highly they may take their businesses somewhere else, leaving the country with less overall wealth (even though it is isolated wealth and not being used for public services). A third theory is that lower and middle class citizens believe they will one day be wealthy too and when they are, they would like to not pay higher taxes for services that take care of the poor. Finally, it could be that the conservative party has combined religious and family value rhetoric into their political platform in the time period from 1980 to present day and have won the support of the middle and lower classes by appealing to their religious worldviews (despite the separation of church and state that prevents politicians from legislating or enforcing religious ideology in government). Whatever the reason, it is an anomaly amongst industrialized nations that America has the most capitalist democratic society in the world today. It is still a mixed economy and long term trends suggest it to be moving toward a greater balance in socialism and capitalism, though at present day the United States.
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian (equal for all people) method of compensation.
There is no concrete method to a socialist economy. It is an idea that came out of the late 19th century in which intellectuals and working class citizens began to see capitalism as unfairly concentrating power and wealth in the hands of a small segment of society who controlled the capital and did not offer fair opportunities for everyone in the society. Socialist proponents disagree on the degree to which the government should control the economy of a nation, and over what services should be provided by the state (and paid for through taxation of the people) and what should be the responsibility of the people. What they agree on is that the government must be involved in some facets of the economy in order to make a society fair and balanced in the opportunities it provides to produce wealth, meet the needs of its citizenry, and avoid the development of large class divides that could lead to social upheaval within a society.
The up side to socialism is that it theoretically fosters a communal effort amongst the members of a society to take care of the basic needs of all members in a society from the moment they are born until they pass away. This economic system takes into account, or leaves opportunity to take into account, such social problems as racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia (fear of people unlike one’s self) and other social barriers that create an unfair competition for the production of wealth. It also asserts that younger members of society as well as elderly members and members suffering from physical and mental ailments are relatively incapable of competing for the production of wealth and must be taken care of by the whole of society. Other aspects of society that are unlikely to produce financial wealth such as public health and environmental threat monitoring, academic research, creation of cures, education, healthcare for low-income members of society, environmental conservation and ecosystem protection practices, care of wild and domesticated animals, law enforcement, fire department, military, postal services, creation of arts and literature, etc. can be considered in a socialist economic system and provided funding for by the state through taxation of the people.
The down side to socialism is that, in nations without free and democratic elections, it can easily lend itself to tyranny (or complete governmental control of a society). This was the case in Stalinist Soviet Union in the early 20th century. In such a situation, whoever seizes control of the government and the military of a nation can, by force, require members of society to work or not work as the government sees fit. This can stifle industry, limit individual’s potential for the production of wealth, and ultimately harm the nation economically if poorly executed. It also takes away the freedom of choice from the members of society to decide for themselves how long they will work and how much wealth they will produce for themselves. For example, the government could theoretically decide that a sixty-hour work week would produce greater wealth for society and instate mandatory sixty-hour work weeks with 100% taxation. Thus, all members of a nation would be required to work the required amount of time in a field decided by the government and receive in return only the products and services the government deems worthy of ownership by the individual. This is the much feared bread-lines that are often discussed when socialism is brought up in America.
How Democracy Effects Socialism: In a society with free and democratically held elections the above scenario literally cannot take place against the will of the people. Even if a president attempted to instate such practices and was able to convince an elected congress to agree with him or her, a nation with a democratic electoral system such as the United States would still be able to change the members of congress every two years and the presidential leader every four years. Thus, socialism in the form as it was seen in Stalinist Soviet Union cannot exist in conjunction with democracy, only with tyranny. In the same way, capitalism also cannot exist in its purest form and allow the accumulation of wealth to exist only amongst the most capable members of society. As wealth begins to accumulate amongst an isolated group in a democratic society, the members of society can choose to elect representatives that will change taxation and legislation to provide for more social products and services to meet the needs of the whole of society and take away opportunities for private industries to produce more wealth amongst an isolated group. Therefore, a mixed economy is what has been found to work best, and is the type of economic system that has existed in the United States since its beginning days.
Socialism has become a naughty word in America, but how many people actually know what this political ideology entails? Many confuse it with communism, which is Karl Marx’s political ideology for a classless, stateless, and democratic society free of oppression. Others recall Joseph Stalin’s iron-fisted tyrannical government in the Soviet Union during World War II era, in which he used government to rule nearly every facet of life in the country. What many don’t realize is that the United States, as well as most industrialized nations of the world, functions under a mixed economy, meaning some aspects of capitalism and some of socialism.
The Fact is we are a mixed economy in America as well as most of the free world.
In my opinion America has come up with the perfect blend of the two political systems.
Last edited:
