Socialism vs. Capitalism

[johnd]

Like the Free will versus irresistible grace argument was hijacked by Calvinists and Armenians as though those were the only two alternatives... so Capitalism and Communism hijacked the argument of what system works best and is more like what God intended.

The two are but extremes of the argument not the totality of the argument or the ideal.

It is for all practical purposes best understood as a pendulum effect with Communism at one end and Capitalism at the other. The happy medium / balance / most stable and most beneficial would be in the middle at Fair Market Free Enterprise.

The hijacking was when the categories were defined totally by either extreme (which are both fascist).

The balance of all is to the benefit of all. As the money boys are finding out, just as Communism collapsed under its own weight so has capitalism. And the more they print money to soften the blow the more they devalue money. Fascism NEVER works on either extreme. The right balance of industrialism and socialism provide the motivation to achieve and the provision for all fellow man (and women) with a fair market inspiring competition to keep prices down and services high and the value of money stable.

The new gold standard (to replace that awful petrodollar standard and the even more awful increasing indebtedness standard of Reaganomics (which GHW Bush called voodoo economics until he was offered the Vice Presidency) will be the rebuilding / improvement of America (and the world). Solar panel farms in space and the desert (for abundant electricity) desalination plants (for abundant water) and 21st Century aquaduct systems to water drought areas and pump out flood zones... why should this be outlandish in 2009? when in 100 BC Romans built aquaducts that went hundreds of miles.

Desertland can be watered (like the Southern California desert was 100 years ago) into farmland. Which if properly rotated and allowed to go fallow every seven years will remain fertile. To say nothing of this "sprinklers in the desert" system putting an end to most wildfires.

Capitalist greed or Communist control has been the prevention of these and many other great advances in recent human history. We cannot afford to allow this any longer.

​

 

[essential]

We must be in the Twilight Zone:

I just read an article where Russian Prime Minister Putin is warning the United States about socialism, saying how dangerous it would be to repeat the mistake Russia had made in its experiment with socialism.

 

[gluadys]

We must be in the Twilight Zone:

I just read an article where Russian Prime Minister Putin is warning the United States about socialism, saying how dangerous it would be to repeat the mistake Russia had made in its experiment with socialism.

The mistake the Soviet Union made was to try and impose Marxist socialism dictatorially from the top-down and to treat the Communist Party as a god-like entity which could do no wrong.

Socialism is not dangerous when it avoids Marxist dogmatism (not all socialism is Marxist), is implemented democratically and recognizes that all of us have human failings so it is dangerous not to have checks and balances in government.


Capitalism, likewise is dangerous when it is given totally free rein without any regulation and corporate leaders treated as god-like, or at least privileged, entities who can do no wrong.

Capitalism is not overly dangerous when it is regulated, when people control capital rather than capital controlling people, through democratic means, and there are social checks and balances that maintain the welfare of people above profit.

The real protection against the excesses of both socialism and capitalism is a strong participatory democracy. The Soviet Union did not have a democracy to prevent the dictatorship of the Communist Party. It remains to be seen if the US has a strong enough democracy to maintain control of capitalism.

 

[Nobody1]

Which do you think is better? Which is moral? Do you believe that Christ supports one or the other?

I am a Christian Socialist, so I believe in socialism. I see capitalism as cruel and unjust. I also believe that the Bible supports socialism.

Acts 2:44-45:

Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.

Acts 4:32-35:

Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.

That was then, this is now.

We all contribute to government in the Free World.

There is no such thing as "socialism", it is a word tainted beyond repair. There is freedom: free markets, free enterprise, free love, free peace, free competition, freedom of speech, freedom of press.

Socialism is a nice way of saying "freedom is bad".

Have you brought the homeless poor into your home or worked at soup kitchens? If you feel a call, then do that. I am sick of these people who boast they care about the poor and do nothing themselves. They do this just to pretend to be good -- to defraud the poor for praise belonging to God alone.

They say, "poor, you do not have to be poor anymore"... some are liars in politics, some in religion. Same thing.

They steal the words of Jesus Christ and twist them into their own making, for their own perverted delusions of grandeur.

We have tremendous health care here already. We can not afford more programs and that is not just because those who manage government have been wicked: but it is also because they can not handle that responsibility.

So, go, speak out about how great it is to take away the freedoms we have, and condemn and judge us for being so hateful of the poor:

God knows I serve the poor, so why are you condemning and judging?

Did not God say to you, "Do not condemn, or you will be condemned" and "do not judge or you will be judged"?

You are only showing your own heart when you do these things.

Repentance is a good thing.

We could do without hate. Then, the world would be a better place.

 

[gluadys]

That was then, this is now.

Humanity hasn't changed. The needs have not changed.

We all contribute to government in the Free World.

That's what the early church was doing. The apostles were the government of the early church.

Socialism is a nice way of saying "freedom is bad".

Socialism is a way of saying having money doesn't give you the right to force other people to live in poverty. We need a democratic economy as much as we need a democratic government.

Have you brought the homeless poor into your home or worked at soup kitchens?

I've done more than that. I have seen to it that homes were built for the homeless.

If you feel a call, then do that. I am sick of these people who boast they care about the poor and do nothing themselves.

And who would those people be? Selfishness and hypocrisy is never found only among one group of people. Neither is care and compassion.

We have tremendous health care here already. We can not afford more programs and that is not just because those who manage government have been wicked: but it is also because they can not handle that responsibility.

You also have the most expensive health care system in the industrialized countries, yet many people cannot access it. A universal system as in Canada, Britain, France and Sweden would cost you less than the system you have now and would reach nearly everybody. So it is not an issue of being able to afford it.

God knows I serve the poor, so why are you condemning and judging?

No one is condemning you. What is being criticized is an economic system that creates extremes of wealth and poverty, not people who do their best within it. You are to be commended for helping where you can.

We could do without hate. Then, the world would be a better place.

Amen. And it would be a better place where the greedy were not rewarded.

 

[Nobody1]

Amen. And it would be a better place where the greedy were not rewarded.

See, that is what I take instance with (as for the veracity of your claims or mine, those are between us and God).

Why do you see everyone as "greedy".

I do not.

Does it feel good to go around seeing everybody that way? I can't imagine that being so.

That must feel horrible.

I could be wrong, tell me what it feels like.

 

[gluadys]

See, that is what I take instance with (as for the veracity of your claims or mine, those are between us and God).

Why do you see everyone as "greedy".

I don't see everyone as greedy.

But let me give you some actual situations.

Today in New York City, Shell Oil Company ended a 13-year court case with an agreement to compensate the family of Ken Saro-Wiwa and the Ogoni people of Nigeria.

What was the case about? Shell Oil was drilling for oil on the lands of the Ogoni. They were taking no precautions to prevent environmental damage. The rivers that people depended on for drinking, cooking, washing as well as fish to eat were becoming polluted. People objected and asked for negotiations with the company, implementation of sound environmental practices of the sort that would be the norm at any oil development in the US or Europe. But the company--along with the then corrupt and military dictatorship in Nigeria at the time--at first ignored them, then resorted to harrassment. At the height of the struggle, the Ogoni leader, a well-known writer and poet, was tried by a kangaroo court, and executed in spite of an international appeal for clemency. His brother fled to Canada with his young family.

Fortunately, the dictatorship came to an end soon after with the death of the dictator and a democratic government was elected. This opened the way for a class action suit against Shell. But Shell has been extremely resistant to making any settlement with the family of Ken Saro-Wiwa or the Ogoni. It took 13 years and another wave of public pressure to bring them round.

Now Shell is an international, profitable company. The Ogoni, for the most part, live on less than $2 a day. What motivates a company with the resources and technical capacity to set up a best practices oil field to set up a shoddily-run one instead? What motivates their CEO to run roughshod over the needs of the community he is working in? And worse, to ruin their livelihood by ruining their farmland and water supply? Many companies (even others under the Shell umbrella) have good relations with local communities, including corporate support for local charities, training programs for young people, sponsorship of scholarships, etc. And they certainly don't get people's backs up by letting oil spill over cornfields or poison water-systems.

So what went wrong in Ogoniland, Nigeria? And why?


Here is another. This time it is a mining company based in Canada. It has found a mineral it would like to extract from Cierro San Pedro, a mountain in Mexico. And it wants to use a cyanide process that could get into the water supply. It will also be dynamiting frequently and when it is done the top of the mountain will be gone.

Obviously there are some technical problems here that would frighten anyone, but they are not the heart of the problem. It happens that Cierro San Pedro is a historic and environmental gem. In fact, the mountain is the centre of a public park and the symbol of the state. I don't know if any US state has a beautiful mountain as its symbol, but imagine how people would feel about blowing off the top of it. Or about threatening some old, beautiful and historic buildings with the shocks of dynamiting close by? So there are some deeply-held sentimental as well as the worrisome technical problems that have led the people to reject this development, or at least hold a thorough-going environmental assessment.

But even this is not the meat of the problem. The company has tried to get the mine going without an environmental assessment or any agreement with the community and without a legal permit. They put up a fence around what they claim is "their property". But it is not their property. The community has taken this to court and the court has ruled that the property is public and the company has no legal right to go ahead with the mine.

Yet three years later, the company is still holding onto it, ignoring the community's right to have a say in what is done with the land, defending their stolen "property" with mercenaries and starting the mining operations which they have no legal right to do.

What is the motivation behind this? If this is not greed, what do you call it?

Last example. Tonight Jethro Tulin spoke to a crowd of Torontonians about the activities of Barrick Gold (another Canadian mining company) in his community in Papua-New Guinea. His people are an indigenous people who still live close to the land. They hunt, they fish, they gather fruit, nuts, roots, etc.

They are not opposed to development. But they are opposed to the wanton destruction of the habitat they depend on for their livelihood. They cannot continue to live near the mine. They are resigned to moving their village. What they want from the company is reasonable compensation for the loss of their land and assistance to relocate.

The company will not even open the door to them. It is adamantly refusing to negotiate with them. It has hired thugs to terrorize the villagers and drive them away as if it were at war with them. They have even set fire to hundreds of houses, leaving people homeless. The villagers are utterly defenseless against the company.

The major shareholders in Barrick Gold lead soft lives among the wealthiest stratum of society. What need do they have to treat a poor indigenous people like that just to make more money? If that is not greed and worse, what is it?


When I speak of people being greedy, I am not speaking of everybody---far from it. I am speaking of those who are already well off permitting, demanding, sanctioning the violation of human rights in order to make still more money for themselves. I am speaking, as the bible does, against those who take (and offer) bribes to subvert justice, who appropriate land illegally as Ahab (with Jezebel's help) took the vineyard of Naboth, who underpay their workers, neglect their responsibilities and react to legitimate criticism with obstruction and even violence. These are people who have been so blinded by the wealth they possess that they consider themselves above the law, and so superior to poor Ogoni or Mexicans or Papuan indigenous peoples, that they have a right to squash them like bugs. And they do. And for what. So they will have still more money.

God's word to the rich farmer who planned to build bigger barns for his grain applies to them. As does Jesus' word: "Whatever you neglected to do for the least of these, you neglected to do for me."


I agree, it would be quite horrible to go through life thinking everybody is greedy. And I don't think at all that everybody is like these arrogant sob's. But I also don't think much of any political or economic system that lets them get away with what they are doing either, or supports them in the name of "freedom". They deserve no more freedom than they gave the Ogoni, the people of Cierro San Pedro and Jethro's people in Papua-New Guinea.

Freedom is of no value unless it is freedom for all. Freedom for the rich and greedy at the expense of freedom for others is not genuine freedom.

 

[Michael J]

There seems to be flaws in both systems, but socialism definately seems optimal.

Most of the time I get into this discussion, people say "Why should I work harder to live as well as the poor people downtown?" People are too concerned with living lavishly. We all know that in the end, our Earthly possesions mean nothing. Why be so concerned about something that we can't take with us to eternity? Christians are supposed to live in God's image. When Jesus walked the Earth, did he have possesions, or money, or anything like that? No. So when I have extra, why not give it to the people who really need it. Why buy a Ferrari when the money difference between that and a Ford Focus could run a homeless shelter for a whole month or two?

Learn to love, live, and give. WWJD

 

[NIF]

Here are three definitions of "socialism" from the dictionary.

Socialism:

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

The first 2 parts of the definition are fine by me, though the third part (Marxist Socialism) is problematic since Marxism is very anti-Christian and Materialistic (as opposed to Spiritual).

Basically, the idea behind socialism is very patriotic. It implies supporting one's country by supporting the education and overall well-being of the people. Obviously, not everyone can be equal since people have different abilities and experiences. However, if you believe in Public Libraries, Child Labor Laws, Roads, Police, and promoting Public Health, then you are a socialist (though some are more radical than others)!

 

[GamesFund]

Socialism and people can make more money too. I think Jesus would want that for us.

 

[ziggy29]

I do not see any reason for "either/or."

On one hand, capitalism unleashes a productive and entrepreneurial spirit which has created wealth more than any other economic system. Unfortunately, taken to an unfettered, unregulated extreme it has the tendency to create huge concentrations of that wealth in a very small number of people. From a Christian perspective the thought of a few wealthy people hoarding all the wealth with so many others in need is unappealing and spiritually immoral. As such despite my libertarian leanings, I reject unfettered laissez-faire capitalism as unworkable in today's world, as well as destabilizing to society.

Socialism, on the other hand, feels fluffy and egalitarian and "equal", but if there is little or no incentive for individuals to worker harder, produce more and prosper for it as in a "pure" socialist system, the "equality" could be an economic morass and everyone is equally poor. (This ignores the fact that the leaders of socialist regimes are some how "more equal" than their subjects.)

Socialism can work when it is voluntary. When everyone involved supports the concept and willingly works to share equally in the fruits of everyone else's labor as well as their own, it can prosper. But socialism forced will not have that high level of voluntary compliance needed for a purely socialist economy to flourish and boost everyone's standard of living. I guess that's why the more "purely" socialist governments have been more totalitarian and have had less regard for human rights.

I find neither extreme acceptable economically or socially.

I have no quarrel with the social goals of a redistributionist system; this is very much embedded in Christ's ministry when He urges us to give generously of our excesses to help those less fortunate. Whether or not it's appropriate to have a government enforce that rather than private charity is, IMO, a very open question.

 

[gluadys]

Socialism can work when it is voluntary. When everyone involved supports the concept and willingly works to share equally in the fruits of everyone else's labor as well as their own, it can prosper. But socialism forced will not have that high level of voluntary compliance needed for a purely socialist economy to flourish and boost everyone's standard of living. I guess that's why the more "purely" socialist governments have been more totalitarian and have had less regard for human rights.

It depends on what you mean by "forced". If socialism does not have the force of law, what you get is laissez-faire capitalism--which forces that system onto everyone whether they want it or not--and all the injustices that go along with it.

But socialism under a dictatorial government is as bad if not worse as we saw in the Soviet Union.

That is why we need democratic socialist governments with a big emphasis on democratic. If ever it comes to a choice between socialism and democracy I think it is more important to defend democracy than to defend socialism and make sure it is a real democracy not just a democracy in name only. I have confidence that given the right and power to decide for themselves how to organize their society most people will choose to restrain capitalism with some level of socialism.

 

[ziggy29]

That is why we need democratic socialist governments with a big emphasis on democratic. If ever it comes to a choice between socialism and democracy I think it is more important to defend democracy than to defend socialism and make sure it is a real democracy not just a democracy in name only. I have confidence that given the right and power to decide for themselves how to organize their society most people will choose to restrain capitalism with some level of socialism.

Well, yes -- consent of the governed, obviously, or else it doesn't work and would have to result in oppressive governments. But I also think a society has to have a largely shared base of culture and values to get that level of buy in to make a "socialist democracy" work.

Here in the United States I just see a far-flung, widely dispersed and divided nation with a huge chasm in terms of ideology, culture, values and vision, and no way to make that work. I see both political extremes as out of touch and utterly unwilling to work for the common good, personally. Best case I would see there is a mostly capitalistic economy with a developed safety net for some minimum standard of living for all. We're way too into regional and identity politics for anything more.

 

[gluadys]

Well, yes -- consent of the governed, obviously, or else it doesn't work and would have to result in oppressive governments. But I also think a society has to have a largely shared base of culture and values to get that level of buy in to make a "socialist democracy" work.

Here in the United States I just see a far-flung, widely dispersed and divided nation with a huge chasm in terms of ideology, culture, values and vision, and no way to make that work. I see both political extremes as out of touch and utterly unwilling to work for the common good, personally. Best case I would see there is a mostly capitalistic economy with a developed safety net for some minimum standard of living for all. We're way too into regional and identity politics for anything more.

I agree. If I were in the US I would spend more time getting people to talk about democracy and why it's not working in the US as it should. You have a marvellous constitution and I have seen how Americans can make their government work for them when they make up their mind to do it. But most of the power of the people in the US is lying idle and unused while some extremists speak about the government as if it were an enemy instead of what it ought to be: the instrument of the will of the people. The US needs a democratic revolution. (I don't mean by violence.)

Unfortunately, my country, as in so many things, seems to be following the example of the US. Our last federal election saw the lowest voter turnout ever.

Would we were as excited about democracy as the Bolivians.

 

[TheReasoner]

I agree. If I were in the US I would spend more time getting people to talk about democracy and why it's not working in the US as it should. You have a marvellous constitution and I have seen how Americans can make their government work for them when they make up their mind to do it. But most of the power of the people in the US is lying idle and unused while some extremists speak about the government as if it were an enemy instead of what it ought to be: the instrument of the will of the people. The US needs a democratic revolution. (I don't mean by violence.)

Unfortunately, my country, as in so many things, seems to be following the example of the US. Our last federal election saw the lowest voter turnout ever.

Would we were as excited about democracy as the Bolivians.

Canada has not had foreigners impose tyrannical regimes on them because they at one point threatened the profits of certain companies from that same nation like Colombia has. If you're subjected to tyranny and having your right to vote and build your own government ripped from you I suppose it is easier to get into it.

There's a lot more to the story of course. But such is the reality for most South American countries. Every time they have tried to build themselves up a certain country has crushed them in the name of profit. It isn't pretty. South America owes most of it's despots, it's secret police, death squads and more to the US of A and it's love for corporations and "corporate freedom".

And yeah, for these and other reasons I would agree that the US needs a democratic revolution. Their government needs to be held responsible to the US people. It needs to be open, not closed. For the people more than the corporations. That's what democracy is about: Everyone having a say regardless of wealth.

 

[katholikos]

Socialism vs. Capitalism

Hisorical facts instead of opinion:

* Socialism has either destroyed or seriously stunted the economy of every country that has ever adopted it.

* Capitolism has created the righest most powerful nation in the history of mankind: The United States.

That's historical fact, minus the academic pointy-headed theories.

 

[ziggy29]

Hisorical facts instead of opinion:

* Socialism has either destroyed or seriously stunted the economy of every country that has ever adopted it.

* Capitolism has created the righest most powerful nation in the history of mankind: The United States.

That's historical fact, minus the academic pointy-headed theories.

This is true. It's also historical fact that too much concentration of wealth in a very small number of hands is a recipe for instability and has resulted in riots, uprisings and even revolutions (see France 1789, Russia 1917). The United States in the late 1800s and early 1900s seemed like it might be headed in that direction as well.

Capitalism is clearly the most prolific wealth-creating economic system out there, I think. Nothing else unleashes the human potential so greatly. The question is -- just how much (or how little) does it need to be reined in so that we can avoid the kind of wealth concentrations that have destabilized and even overthrown governments (the "peasants with torches and pitchforks" sort of thing)?

 

[Johnnz]

The poles are not socialism and captitalism. Today, strongly socialist countries also embrace capitalistic models, such as the Scandinavian countries. The real issues are the degree of social justice that a society exhibits and the extent to which individualism is unconstrained.

John
NZ

 

[TheReasoner]

Hisorical facts instead of opinion:

Facts are the way to go!

* Socialism has either destroyed or seriously stunted the economy of every country that has ever adopted it.

Really? What about Scandinavia? Social democracies, the lot of them.

Also, please do not forget that most socialistic nations faced a lot of violent resistance, spurred on by the USA. Covertly or through more or less open invasion the socialistic and usually democratically elected governments were overthrown and capitalistic despots installed instead. So one may ask, would it have worked as well in South America (or other places where the US has pulled the same trick) as it has in Scandinavia had the US NOT interfered?

* Capitolism has created the righest most powerful nation in the history of mankind: The United States.

Well, a nation currently in decline for the same reason many would argue. Also, it has - like most/all other powerful nations - been built in large part upon the backs of other countries who have been less fortunate. Britain built it's former glory through theft. As did Spain and France. We built ours on conquest, the Swedes as well. But we've all fallen. The US may fall yet. Capitalism creates short term growth, yes. But it is also a system which can cause collapse if it isn't monitored closely. The US itself was close to falling into fascism during the new deal if you recall the planned coup general Butler thwarted. Mussolini and Hitler both built what Mussolini called "Corporatist" states. In the name of social darwinism they attacked unions and workers rights in the name of profit. Their systems, also called 'fascism' were hugely popular among capitalists in the US and Europe alike. It worked well. It generated much more profits than systems allowing for workers' rights would do. It also encouraged competition something fierce. So it was very popular.... Anyway, I could talk for hours on how IBM, Ford and many others supported Hitler and Mussolini prior to - and in many cases all the way through - the war. And I could talk about the east india trading companies and the wars they waged, ending in mass murder, even genocide certain places. All in the name of profit, enabled through low restrictions on trade (i.e. capitalism).

The point is: Capitalism is a human device. It has it's uses, it's strong points and it's pitfalls. Just like any other ideology we make. We must not at any point consider it or any other ideology the solution to all our problems. It has pitfalls we must be aware of and we must take steps to ensure that we do not go so far to the right that human rights and sustainability are ignored as profit becomes the sole goal of a nation, company or person.

That's historical fact, minus the academic pointy-headed theories.

It is also only a part of the whole picture. Capitalism has cost millions of lives as the rich and powerful have sought increased profit. Usually not as openly killed as through Stalinism or Maoism but still... A life lost is a life lost.

 

[Rao]

Personally I like something in between, as in many european countries.

Capitalism may be more "efficient", but only when you can get a truly free market, which doesn't happen too often as a matter of fact. If you have only 2-3 competitors, that's hardly a free market.

But then "efficiency" has little to do with "morality". "Moral" would be a system that doesn't tolerate poverty, and in principle that's pretty much the starting principle behind socialism.

Capitalism is a "hopeful" system based on the idea that if the totality becomes richer, then later everyone individually can get the benefit of it and get out of poverty. Socialism is more direct, and aims straight at spreading benefits to the poorest to get them out of poverty without waiting.

So in principles I have to choose socialism... then of course history shows that this can be abused by evil people as much as capitalism.