Socialism vs. Capitalism?

[Zidane420]

I was just wondering what you guys thought of these two. I know that capitalism has proven great for countries (especially America) since the end of WWII but with countries like Sweden and even Canada being considered among the best countries to live in, I feel like socialism could be making a comeback. What are your thoughts on this issue?

P.S. (How can China be considered so socialist as to be communist when there economy thrives on capitalism?)

 

[Virgo]

Sweden and Canada are socialist? where did you get that from

why is this in the Movies Forum anyway?

 

[Zidane420]

ooops,

sorry I meant for it to be in the lounge. Can someone move it for me.

 

[Help?]

Sweden and Canada are NOT socialist. USSR was socialist and it was ****e, nuff said.

 

[Kibe Kru]

in theory Socialism is quite good, though on practice it doesn't work... just look at the USSR...

 

[TheBlueBalla]

Jesus, dont cut his head off. He just made a generalization

Sweeden and Canada have undoubted socialist elements in their societies. The problem with people terming entities like the USSR socialist lies in the fact that we lose perspective regarding the construction of many modern, western societies, considering how Socialism helped alter them in the 19th century. The guiding principle of early socialists was a belief in redressing the inequity of many of their societies, and thus things that are commonplace followed such as labor reform, state sponsored education, etc etc. In the 20th century, you see this carry on with aid for the disadvantaged and universal health care.

People point to the Soviet Union as an example of socialism because its, kinda, on the same political wavelength. But, in my opinion and in the ideals and principles of many of the movements thinkers, socialism is a process that people must take as a means of natural progression. The most simplistic and obvious difference I have been presented with in the past is that the Communist believes one must sweat and toil to violently clear out the old order and initiate a more equitable society by force, whereas the socialist believes such a result will come as a matter of human understanding (however contrived that notion might be in the minds of most) and that force will not be necesscary because we will reach the stage of understanding and "brotherhood" that will make the trappings of this new world order inevitable (again, very fanciful).

When one looks to the old Socialist parties of the late 19th century and early 20th in Western Europe, specifically imperial Germany, France, Britain, etc, they had a large support base among the industrial working class and as sufferage gradually expanded, they started to become a majority in many goverments. But there was always this comittment to use the prexisting means of goverment and society, in this case a democratic western system, to gain access to the reigns of government. Should they be given that chance, that would serve as a mandate from the people that the change the ideology was working towards could now happen, legally and theoretically bloodlessly.

That in my opinion (and with a very limited understanding of communism) is the major distinction. Both ideologies see a similar light at the end of the tunnel. The theorey central to a marxist interpretation of communism is that there must be a struggle, and that when the workers paradise is brought about it is to be by violent means, where the old ruling class and all its trappings are disposed of. Again, that is my limited understanding at work. In the mind of a socialist, that transition has no need to be violent, chaotic, etc, because human understanding and sensibilities will, when the time is right, have evolved to the point where there will be no desire to resist such a transition.

All that said, that doesnt paint a very complete picture for you, but I hope it helps. I dont mean to cheapen an ideology, but I consider myself a believer in socialism and what it entails. I think like that not because I am a true believer in some massive world paradise where all the "unnecesscary" elements of todays society simply wither away (on the contrary, I doubt that will will ever be without things like private finance or government) but because I believe in 1. the ability, and even the responsibility, of goverment to work towards the active betterment of a society by direct means (i.e. nationalized health care, education, welfare, etc etc) and 2. in the necesscity to make massive alterations in the direction a society goes through legal means alone. Revolution has its place in my mind, but only when injustice and oppression are direct....not implied as in a capitalist system.

Anyway, im probably gonna get flamed silly with all the system's imperfections and criticisms, but I hope that helped clear a little but up from one side, dude

 

[modena_10]

i could be wrong, but i'm pretty sure that socialism has been confused with communism. im pretty sure(atleast what i can remember from my politics class) that there is a difference. the USSR was communist.

doesn't spain have a socialist government. also i thought one of the scandinavian countries also have a socialist government. these obviously aren't confused with communism.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

Basically the difference between socialism and communism back during the Cold War was that the Communist parties, no matter where they were, were in some way associated with Moscow.

 

[Kibe Kru]

I'm confused here.. I'm no political expert, but I've been told communism is the "goal" of socialism... in socialism, government would ensure everyone was equal (ultra simplifying it), while in communism, the government wouldn't be needed anymore... though I'm pretty sure I'm wrong about it...

 

[ShiftyPowers]

Yeah, I think that's the Karl Marx version, it's been changed in recent years. Just wikipedia the terms.

 

[flamehawk]

Well, it's hard to judge socialism through self-proclaimed socialist/communist nations like the USSR, China, Cuba, Laos etc. These are but interpretations and branches of Marxism and Socialism, and can no way be used to generalize socialism as a whole (which in my definition includes everything left of the spectrum from democratic-socialism (Canada, Sweden), stalinism, anarcho-syndicalism, most branches of anarchism etc.)). If anything many of the interpretations by nations seems rather far off from socialist ideals ... China, in my view, is bloody imperialistic -"greatest for of capitalism" (Tibet, XinJiang, Inner Mongolia), through military conquest, destruction of culture - book burnings still go on today in these states.

I believe the major problem with these interpretations is the existence of a centralized government. Centralized power breeds elitism, which therefore is just as bad as capitalism.

I think that governance needs to literally be from the people; I am buying more and more into alternative anarchist-leaning systems like Parecon for economics ... and Parpolity for politics. It probably won't work overnight, but slowly as the culture changes and the current systems reform, it might be a good objective. It seems to be working pretty well in Chiapas with the Zapatistas (not exactly participatory politics/economics but similar with decision making).

Most communist nations today are clearly flawed ... China has drifted so far away from socialism, it's often hard to tell that the one country two system policy actually existed, being from Hong Kong. It's blatant plutocracy here in Hong Kong, tycoons and ceos basically elect our "Chief Executive" (ironic name). While in China, the amount of ads, the brainwashing of the red youth army (actual name slipped my mind, equiv to Hitler's Youth but China) to like Disney - they actually forced them to watch disney programs in the months prior to the opening of Disney Land in Hong Kong and so forth.

My beliefs may fall on the left of the spectrum, but in the end of the day, I think it over-simplifies the argument to simply debate socialism vs capitalism. I don?t think that there is any one system that is universal, it simply does not take into account the differences between culture, history etc. It nice to see nations and communities develop their own political/economic system and put into practice (Zapatistas in Chiapas,Mexico, or Somaliland (break-away nation in Somalia)), and I think that's the way forward, instead of neo-colonialism ... aka. Globalization.

 

[flamehawk]

Oh, and I was wondering why was moron's post was deleted. I may disagree with his conclusion, but it adds to the discussion ....

I was just wondering what you guys thought of these two. I know that capitalism has proven great for countries (especially America) since the end of WWII but with countries like Sweden and even Canada being considered among the best countries to live in, I feel like socialism could be making a comeback. What are your thoughts on this issue?

The basic thing you need to know is that the U.S.S.R was a Socialist state, it was never a communist state (there is no such thing as a communist state, because communism is a STATELESS society.) However, it is safe to say that it was a Communist state with a CAPITAL C, because the U.S.S.R was run by the Communist Party. Capice?

Socialism (as envisioned by Karl Marx) is actually a mechanism that suppresses the bourgeoisie class. It is basically a stage in the communist philosophy towards reaching the end goal, which is a stateless society = communism. As Karl Marx said, the state will "wither away" when the whole bourgeoisie has been exterminated, and the mode of production is in the hands of the workers.

Kanada and that other ****ty country? Sweden? Those are not Socialist states, they just implement stupid welfare programs to the extreme (unlike the U.S). So it's basically a 'vulgar' form of socialism, or may i say "bourgeois socialism'?

P.S. (How can China be considered so socialist as to be communist when there economy thrives on capitalism?)

China actually has a small piece of the economy employed in the private sector. I thinks it's like 60-70 million chinese employed in the private sector. The leadership China is using this tiny fraction of the population and economy to generate disproportional growth rates in order to allow the economy to expand at such a rate that they can outpace the United States in the next two decades. This is part of China's long term strategic plan, just as outspending the Soviet Union was part of America's long term strategic plan. Its a tactic for ending American hegemony, a means to an end that could not be otherwise achieved.

China is obligated to compete because it doesn't have the vast resources the former U.S.S.R had. "Pure" socialism cannot exist in a country with a dearth of natural resources. To avoid stagnation it must trade with capitalist countries. It needs foreign capital. Most of its national economy, however, is sitll and shall continue to be owned in a socialistic manner. When the country surpasses the U.S the privately owned industry shall be expropriated.

I wholeheartedly support China!

Socialismo o MUERTE!!!

 

[ShiftyPowers]

stateless society = communism? More like anarchism. From a technical perspective.

 

[Shindig]

That's anarchism, yes. Capitalism is by no means a bad thing. We're in a capitalist society at the minute. Governments have welfare systems in place and charities enable us to give to the less fortunate. Sure, it's still selfish but very little would change with communism.

Communism's built on the idea we're all equal. We're not all born equal, no matter how many times we say it.

 

[RobbieD_PL]

I'm Center-Left, philosophically (classless but ethnically divided society there4 states still in existance, we dont all speak the same language, & none of this violent revolution we are all human beings, we can sort out our differences via peaceful means, I prefer socialism to communism (people using diplomacy to co-operate, rather than blowing each other away only to have half the populus dead). ). Economically, if the whole world was socialist then international trade could still be carried out, "each to his needs each to his ability". Also I'd say that the EU & UN is striving to make everyone equal by giving them a voice. I commend these organisations in uniting a divided & war torn conitinent & world.

Religion should not be shunned, at least when it comes to indivdual morality if nothing else (Again if there are disputes, bring them to the table). Legal system should be Innocent untill proven guilty, the death penalty should be abolished world wide, as morality would take care of the need to kill & justify it. (A worldwide constitution? let's not forget the consquences of mistranslation... )

Science would also have to be appreciated, Imagine having the cure for terminal diseases, solving world peace, developing technology beyond our wildest dreams, all because everyone strives for the general good? Science should also see to the preservation of nature, Money might be printed on paper, & that means it really can grow off trees, if we sustain them Renewable energy should seriously be looked at.

As for possesions, people want alot, and only really need some. I dont think we should deny ourselves luxuries, but unfortunately the line must be drawn somewhere. Capital is needed, the food queues of 70's 80's E. Europe should never been seen again, but Capitalism's Globalisation in the economic sense is not. The Bourgeoisie should comprise of those who merit such high status such as Nobel Peace Prize winners, Scientists, Humanitarians, Artists, Athletes all of whom who perform inspirational feats of human ablity.

Being Center-Left doesnt mean extreme conformity, it means acceptance of humanity, & making society a humane one, whereby a human cares for their fellow human, instead of just thier own backyard. We might not be born equal, but let's treat ourselves like how we want to be treated (it's a really good philosophy that one )

I dont know if what of anything ive just wrote makes any sense to anyone (btw it's 11PM over here), or whether its defined as left right, up down centre extreme or whatever...
All I know is that we as humans of this Earth need to look out for one another & with time we will revive our compassionate nature & our diplomatic ties with whom we have our differences with & that if we want to survive, we will have to do so together.

 

[Andrejs]

"Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

I consider myself (I know it's hypocritical) as an anarcho-syndicalist, by the way

 

[flamehawk]

"Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

I consider myself (I know it's hypocritical) as an anarcho-syndicalist, by the way

haha, awesome to see another anarchist



but I am wondering, what's the difference between anarcho-communism and syndicalism? Could never tell.

 

[Virgo]

Sweeden and Canada have undoubted socialist elements in their societies.

Having a government adopt social policies like universal healthcare payed by social security, has absolutely nothing to do with being a socialist state.

Most of the countries in the world are being run at the moment by Democratic socialists (Portugal is), elected in elections and that adopted some ideas from the original socialism and applied them to capitalist societies.
Note that the Labour party in the UK belongs to Democratic Socialism as well.

You can read more about it here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

 

[Run DMB]

but with countries like Sweden and even Canada being considered among the best countries to live in, I feel like socialism could be making a comeback.

That's not Socialism. That's Capitalism Lite.

P.S. (How can China be considered so socialist as to be communist when there economy thrives on capitalism?)

China is still ruled by the Communist Party, and I think that's the only way you can argue that it's a "Communist country". Of course, the party has allowed for some serious economic reform, while still denying many human rights to its citizens.

 

[Tom]

The whole world is capitalist nowadays, the good old days of the socialist state seem long behind us. Mind you, you never know how long capitalism will last for...

By the way, anyone whos interested in looking at capitalism and how things have changed over the past 20 or so years, check out Manuel Castells views on The Network Society.