Capitalism v Socialism

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Gary Childress
Posts: 1878
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Capitalism v Socialism

Post by Gary Childress » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:13 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Wed Jun 03, 2020 12:52 pm
Wow, it looks like the thread title needs even more extending as mister Saunders there has gone way past mere Lassaiz-Faire with that Social Darwinist hot take.

The options were on the table to suggest private (capitalist) crop insurance, spreading weather related risk among a society of businesses rather than socialising it via government.
Also that in those circumstances the farmer's land still has resale value if he is the private enterprise land owner, and that the fable (stolen from Aesop) can be seen as merely advocating consolidation where failed businesses are bought up by successful ones which is pretty normal.

But sure, 'everyone who is bad at business should die and exit the gene pool' is another option to go for if that's the way you like to think.
Well, Social Darwinism may as well be the answer. Apparently, according to Mr. Saunders, if someone is just plain foolish and squanders their life, possesses a personality disorder, becomes a drug addict, or whatnot, then they get to perish by the roadside, not that current government programs provide a perfect safety net either but such is life I guess. I mean, there used to be the clergy that could soak up some of the "foolishness" but many have lost their belief in God.

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 1737
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Capitalism v Socialism

Post by RCSaunders » Wed Jun 03, 2020 3:58 pm

Gary Childress wrote:
Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:13 pm
Apparently, according to Mr. Saunders, if someone is just plain foolish and squanders their life, possesses a personality disorder, becomes a drug addict, or whatnot, then they get to perish by the roadside, not that current government programs provide a perfect safety net either but such is life I guess. I mean, there used to be the clergy that could soak up some of the "foolishness" but many have lost their belief in God.
If you are truly concerned about those who squander their lives, have personality disorders, are drug addicts or have any other problems, there is nothing in this word to prevent you from helping them. Government programs don't work, but many individuals have helped others, simply because they wanted to, without having the their money confiscated by a government first.

Gary Childress
Posts: 1878
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Capitalism v Socialism

Post by Gary Childress » Wed Jun 03, 2020 4:46 pm

RCSaunders wrote:
Wed Jun 03, 2020 3:58 pm
Gary Childress wrote:
Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:13 pm
Apparently, according to Mr. Saunders, if someone is just plain foolish and squanders their life, possesses a personality disorder, becomes a drug addict, or whatnot, then they get to perish by the roadside, not that current government programs provide a perfect safety net either but such is life I guess. I mean, there used to be the clergy that could soak up some of the "foolishness" but many have lost their belief in God.
If you are truly concerned about those who squander their lives, have personality disorders, are drug addicts or have any other problems, there is nothing in this word to prevent you from helping them. Government programs don't work, but many individuals have helped others, simply because they wanted to, without having the their money confiscated by a government first.
I suppose government can also be seen as a kind of insurance program for society, one that everyone buys into so that risk is shared more universally-- Insurance against impoverishment, insurance against rioting, insurance against foreign invasion, etc. But I suppose not everyone feels like they want all those kinds of insurance.

I still think tax forms should have checkboxes where people can individually check off what programs they want their tax dollars to go to. It would be more democratic. And then, if the time comes to collect that insurance, it would be determined from a person's tax records whether they qualify for it or not.

I mean, it's not like money is being confiscated by the government so that people living in Section 8 housing can drive a Mercedes Benz and wear a Rolex. People on welfare don't make much money at all living off of it.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7587
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

some bits & pieces of perspective from another place & time

Post by henry quirk » Wed Jun 03, 2020 6:04 pm

By definition: Capitalism is only about 'capital', so it's natural for the Capitalist to see himself protected by the Big Stick, hence he works to see regs minimized on himself and maximized on his competition. The Capitalist always has an eye open for bringing every penny into 'his' coffers (not his competitor's and sure as shit not his customer's or employee's). Capitalism is an exercise that promotes intrusive, irresponsible, playin' the favorites, muckin' with the culture, rule by the powerful.

By definition: Free Enterprse is only about the trading individual as he transacts with other trading individuals. The Big Stick is excluded ('cept mebbee as final arbiter of dispute) so it's natural for the Free Enterpriser to be cautious and moderate (he has no safety net to catch him or teat to nourish in bad times). 'Too big to fail' is alien to the Free Enterpriser cuz the reality of failure looms (the wolf is always at the door). Free Enterprise promotes less intrusive, responsible, largely silent, neutral, proxy-hood.


-----

In my case: while defintions and whatnot come from dictionaries and whatnot, my experience of the difference between Free Enterprise and Capitalism is first hand.

As I say: I self-employ, and I do so in a gray area sphere (information). I find it, convey it, wash my hands of it. What I do is largely unregulated ('cept by 'legit' private investigators who are always lookin' to call down the fire on someone they think is takin' their business). Mine is truly a 'free' enterprise. I have no formal regulators to oversee me, no safety net, no teat. If I don't work, or if I work but fail, there's no line for me to stand in to get a check. If I'm screwed over by a client, the current iteration of the courts is of little use to me.

Having worked 9 to 5, with all the benefits and all the strictures, serving multiple overseers, ain't no way in Heaven or Hell I'd ever give up the autonomy I have now for the 'security' I had then.

As I reckon things: Free Enterprise, with all it's dangers and neck-breakin', life-wreckin' possibilities, is superior to State Capitalism with it's abattoir-like confinements and 'regulations'. Only thing State Capitalism is better than is State Socialism (and not by much).

Free enterprise, for the record, is synonomous with 'free (open, unregulated) market' (something Capitalists discourage [which makes them different from commies how?]).


-----
Bonus Material (included cuz I like it)

It was said...

"Yeah, this is why I've evolved into more of a pragmatist. To become such an individualist that you oppose government assisting in the liberation of others makes no sense to me. Government exists, if you want good governance you have to engage with it. Libertarianism has become a way to convince people not to engage with their government assuring government which does not represent their interests."

...I translated ⬆️ into...

Yeah, this is why I've evolved into a slave. To be a free man and oppose being turned into a resource for others makes me scared. Governors exist. And, since we all want to be on the governors' good side we should do as told. Libertarianism is 'bad' because it reminds people the governors are employees and governors don't like that. Libertarianism is 'wrong' because it highlghts the natural tension between those who govern and those governed, a tension governors very much want to eliminate so as to better 'govern' (rule).

...then summed it up as...

I've accepted my lot, which is to be bent over. Libertarians, with all their shennanigans, endanger my lube supply.

Gloominary
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: Capitalism v Socialism

Post by Gloominary » Fri Jun 12, 2020 2:15 am

There's such a thing as market capitalism and state capitalism.

There's such a thing as state socialism and market socialism.

You can also do free enterprise without intellectual property or national currency.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7587
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Capitalism v Socialism

Post by henry quirk » Fri Jun 12, 2020 5:04 pm

Gloominary wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 2:15 am
There's such a thing as market capitalism and state capitalism.

There's such a thing as state socialism and market socialism.

You can also do free enterprise without intellectual property or national currency.
When we begin needlessly categorizin' we do the enemy's work for him.

I belong to me or I don't: there are no degrees of ownness, no middle ground to dick around with.

I transact freely or I don't: there are no degrees of open market, no middle ground to dick around with.

There's Free Enterprise and there's everything else.


Currency: we currently don't have even a national currency; we have IOUs.

Gold (and similar commodities): there's your real currency (no nation required).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests