Re: Capitalism versus Socialism

I'm smart enough to know about the history of the 20th century and about the
lessons learned regarding the world's experiment with communism.


"Michael Scheltgen" <mjs818@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3NTng.99419$Mn5.53368@xxxxxxxxxxx
I think a new rule of thumb is you don't know what in the world
you're talking about.

Wells wrote:
The rule of thumb is really simple: If the economy works, then it's
capitalism, if it doesn't, then it's socialism.


"Nospam" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1608817.57YbmCSA7g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Wells wrote:


1) You never hear about unemployed labor fleeing capitalist countries

and

seeking work in socialist countries.

Possibly because there was no socialist country in the world. Ever.
Socialism require common ownership of ALL the production means
while keeping a full functional democracy. It never happen.

The reason may be because all the attempts was made as a result of
revolutions. And a revolution it is an anarchic process where
opportunist
individuals have the ability to hijack the process. This individuals,
without any skills, abilities and morality took advantage of the
revolutionary process to secure their persistence on power.

Destroying the democracy was the only way a junky communist was able to
do that, since into a democratic society where the value is
democratically
elected a guy without any skills, IQ and morality does not have any
chance
to stay there for long. A first reelection is easy to get, blaming the
enemies for all your failures and promissing to stay on track to fix it.
But the second re-election is rather impossible to democratically win
with lies and tricks. So supression of democracy was mandatory for any
junk leader hungry for power.

Then, in order to avoid any internal competition the valuable
co-revolutionary friends are suppressed too.
Looking at the history in Eastern Europe occupied by USSR after WWII.
The communist party didn't exist or where it did their presence was

rather

symbolic, with tens or a couple of hundred of members in most of the
countries :-) They were practically created by the soviet occupation.
Once the communist parties popped up and took the power they gave an
ultimatum to socialists and social-democrat parties to join them.
Many of leaders and members of socialists and social democratic parties

were

then sent to jail, gulags or just killed.

The economic and political power are intertwined. In the name of common
ownership and in the absence of any democratic oversight over power (due

to

suppression of democracy and former friends) it was breeze for the
communist oligarchy to hijack all the power. In the end, there was no
common ownership left. A small oligarchy owned all the economic power

while

everybody else were as mater of fact slaves on the oligarchy monopoly.

Well, this is exactly the economic outcome of a libertarian style free
market. A small capitalist oligarchy will take controll of all the

economic

power then by using it will hijack the political power.

The communism and today's "free market" fanatic crowd are exactly the

same

thing. They target the same finality, what differ are the paths used to
achieve that finality.


Comming back to socialism. Let assume however that into a way or another
a
society is successfull into implementing socialism. It is going to work
as
advertised ? Well, I don't think so.

The distribution of created wealth regardless of skills, ability or

hardwork

is by itself not fair. If a hardworking individual is compensated as a

lazy

guy, the hardworking lose incentives for what he is doing. This is going

to

generate an equality at the bottom of hardwork, having as the result a
lot
of wasted workforce.

A inequality in income is required to keep a society healthy, but with
the
condition that the inequality is always generated by hardwork and skills
and NOT by cronyism or as a result of already owned property.

Capitalism on the other side is also not much better than the socialism.
It provide incentives but also generate a lot of waste of workforce
since
in some cases it is more cost effective to fire workers and reduce
production than cut prices and being left without to much proffit.

A sane solution will be somewhere in the middle. A social democracy
built

on

the capitalist background but with a strong government involvement in
economy to prevent waste of workforce, suffering generated by economic
downturns and to encourage a reward by skill, work and education.










.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Capitalism versus Socialism
    ... Socialism except at gunpoint. ... leadership has succombed to the corruptions of power. ... We have to rely in democracy and education. ... A bank clerk is correct because he need that job for the money. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Axis Of Idiocy
    ... Keep in mind that communism was supposed to be a form of socialism ... However, once democracy was removed, ALL communist regimes immediately ... communism become a truly extreme right ... controll of the political power. ...
    (talk.politics.misc)
  • Re: "Debunking" Barack Obama
    ... Not the traditional socialism or communism of ... socialism promoted self centeredness rather than community. ... power of Iran, but the power of Islamic radicals in other countries. ... In fact, under Bush, the US is seen as one of the biggest *threats* to the ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
    ... in order to legitimate their authorities. ... The terms socialism and communism where not vandalized, ... communism than GNU/Linux has with Microsoft. ... put into practice as different than democracy by theory. ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: Capitalism versus Socialism
    ... Socialism require common ownership of ALL the production means ... revolutionary process to secure their persistence on power. ... Destroying the democracy was the only way a junky communist was able to ... economy to prevent waste of workforce, ...
    (sci.econ)