History Greatest debate in modern history? Socialism(not Stalinism) vs Capitalism

[AlexES16]

Im still waiting for an aswer about the rights of workers in a pure free market economy, in the beginning of industrialization, few capitalist owned everything and made people work excessively, in that context Marx was right about being against that sytem. In one way or another the socialist ideology helped to make a more fair exchange capitalist-worker. So it looks like in that sense is a mixed economy the way or even a socialist one. I prefer being a middle class helping society than a rich slaving the others. But maybe I am wrong, maybe the free market provides more jobs and then people will go to best company.

 

[AlexES16]

It doesn't. Capitalism provides you with opportunities, not guarantees. You have a right to create and store property. You have the right to voluntary exchange. You have the opportunity to create wealth. But, if guarantees are what you're after then Capitalism probably isn't what you're looking for, which is fine by me. I just don't want you to see these things as failures of Capitalism, because those aren't the aims of Capitalism.

Those are the aims of Statism, and it'd be equally fallacious for me to say that it is the failure of Statism that it can't create a strong economy for its people. That's not the goal of Statism to begin with.

To each his own.

Well if pure capitalism dosent even protect you from working 16 hours a day, then i prefer keeping the fight against it. I will not want to have my life owned by company(if i quit i die of hunger).

 

[AlexES16]

Socialism is about workers taking command of the state and the means of production. Now my fear is about how in socialism you replace or use suply and demand.

Read the article : "Why Socialism by Albert Einstein"

 

[russ_watters]

I think you guys are creating a false dichotomy. I don't think anyone is suggesting a pure form of either, but rather just which side of center is preferred.

Edit...or which side of where we are now is preferred.

 

[czelaya]

Socialism is about workers taking command of the state and the means of production. Now my fear is about how in socialism you replace or use suply and demand.

Read the article : "Why Socialism by Albert Einstein"

So how well has socialism worked so far? How much have socialist societies contributed to science, technology, and the advancement of mankind? Do you actually believe state control will produce even half of what a capitalist society? Why do you put your faith in governments? Personally, I would want to live in a society where I have both economic and personal freedom... I don't want to rely on someone else... I want to be responsible for my own destiny. Government will never build this utopia where security guaranteed for life.

I've read the article before. Albert Einstein was a brilliant theoretical physicist but he even had his flows. He helped usher the advancement of quantum theory with his work on the photo electric effect then refuted quantum theory in general. I'm sure Einstein was not very well versed in economics like he was with physics.

 

[mheslep]

R R Palmer discusses this thesis at length in his text concerning modern world history and also notes that several historians subscribe to this thesis. Ronald E Powaski text The Cold War: The United States and the Soviet Union, 1917-1991 addresses this argument at length and (once again) notes that this interpretation does draw support from some scholars.

Thanks. And you contend that if I research their writings I will find they argue

[...] that the USSR failed not because of socialism itself, but rather because of the oppressiveness of stalinism (note: stalinism != socialism).

Yes? One immediate and obvious issue with that contention requiring clarification is timing. The USSR collapsed in ~1991, Stalin died in 1953. Do you contend (or these historians) that Stalinism (vice socialism) lingered on as the USSR's political system all the way through Gorbachev and Glasnost?

 

[czelaya]

Russwaters is correct. What exactly do you want? To live in a society where you have job security? If so, forget socialism. Maybe communism or fascism are the answers you're looking for.

 

[mheslep]

Socialism, however, requires no money system ...

Sure it does. Lenin tried abolishing the currency at first, and found everything quickly grinding to a halt. That experience led to his fall back statement of "we will control thehttp://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=1570&kaid=125&subid=162"" e.g. factories, means of production, etc.

 

[calculusrocks]

Well if pure capitalism dosent even protect you from working 16 hours a day, then i prefer keeping the fight against it. I will not want to have my life owned by company(if i quit i die of hunger).

It may be easier to find a socialist country to live in, right?

Socialism is about workers taking command of the state and the means of production. Now my fear is about how in socialism you replace or use suply and demand.

Read the article : "Why Socialism by Albert Einstein"

In context historically, 1949 was right after WWII. We saw how our government took care of the NAZI's, and it lead to a belief that the government could end depressions. This was common thinking at the time. Besides, Einstein is making the point I was trying to make. Even if they prefer socialism, would rather live in a country with more economic liberty. He left Statist Germany, for somewhat more capitalist America.

 

[mgb_phys]

He left Statist Germany, for somewhat more capitalist America.

Although to be fair, there may have been other considerations beyond economic theory.

 

[mheslep]

...I'd think they'd be pretty upset to find that the principles of freedom and equality of opportunity (ie, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness), the most important principles on which our country was founded, are being ground down to a bloody stump.

Eh, maybe with respect to pursuit of happiness. Other than that, I'd describe the perversion of original intent in the opposite matter: that those important principles are being diluted down to nothingness by declaring everything a right. Included in this thread was the right to vacation of all things.

 

[calculusrocks]

Although to be fair, there may have been other considerations beyond economic theory.

No doubt he had to leave. But...

Why didn't he go to Canada? Why didn't he choose South America?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Well if pure capitalism dosent even protect you from working 16 hours a day, then i prefer keeping the fight against it. I will not want to have my life owned by company(if i quit i die of hunger).

Why would pure capitalism cause you to work 16 hours a day? That kind of coercion is almost the exclusive stronghold of statist regimes, not free market societies.

If a company (in a free-market state) required its workers to work 16 hours a day and they didn't want to work that long, they'd quit and get jobs elsewhere. If lots of companies require this (and lots of workers don't want to work that long), then new companies will enter to take advantage of the cheap labor supply of those unwilling to work 16 hour days.

Meanwhile, the companies requiring 16-hour days would have workers leaving, forcing them to cut production, raise hours (!), or employ more workers. To employ more workers they will have to offer higher pay. So now you have an industry with high-paying jobs and 16-hour workdays in some companies and (relatively) low-paying jobs with shorter workdays. Seems reasonable to me.


Personally, if that transformation was to happen to my industry, I would go in the opposite direction: trade time for money and work longer hours. On the other hand I know people who would be happy to earn less if they were able to cut their hours to, say, 25-30 per week. The free market is an excellent mechanism for allocating work between both types.

 

[BoomBoom]

So how well has socialism worked so far? How much have socialist societies contributed to science, technology, and the advancement of mankind? Do you actually believe state control will produce even half of what a capitalist society?

Quite a bit I believe...

You do realize that many (if not most) of our contributions to science, technology, and the advancement of mankind came directly from 'socialist' funding mechanisms, do you not?

There really is no money/profit in scientific research, so without funding grants, our sci/tech advancements would slow to a snail's pace, IMO.

 

[mgb_phys]

Why didn't he go to Canada? Why didn't he choose South America?

PIAS was the best place in the world at the time for theoretical physics.
Perhaps today the Perimeter Institute in Canada would be better?

I assume that he also felt that nowhere in Europe (Cambridge, Copenhagen, Leiden) would be safe. Bohr was 'extracted' from Copenhagen in a fairly risky war time mission.

 

[hagopbul]

i think the main problem that no one is living in a " Socialist " community ... so how you know if it is good or not

i like you all but the main problem in the idea of a government is one thing [not Socialist or capitalist] it is the Over important of money ! if money will be the most important concept of government or materiel way of thinking .. will make the life of its population ...bad.

 

[edpell]

I agree there are no pure implementations of any ideological system on the planet.

The most common "system" I see is the alpha male and his thugs hold the rest of the population in a dictatorship. This is a very common system on planet earth. A system I do not like (not being the alpha male and also having some moral sense).

 

[calculusrocks]

PIAS was the best place in the world at the time for theoretical physics.
Perhaps today the Perimeter Institute in Canada would be better?

I assume that he also felt that nowhere in Europe (Cambridge, Copenhagen, Leiden) would be safe. Bohr was 'extracted' from Copenhagen in a fairly risky war time mission.

What I'm saying is that it's not a coincidence that this opportunity existed in America. He wasn't some inventor trying to make the newest best thing and make a ton of money, BUT the projects he worked on were made possible by the inventors trying to make the newest and best things because the project came from their taxes.

 

[AlexES16]

Why would pure capitalism cause you to work 16 hours a day? That kind of coercion is almost the exclusive stronghold of statist regimes, not free market societies.

If a company (in a free-market state) required its workers to work 16 hours a day and they didn't want to work that long, they'd quit and get jobs elsewhere. If lots of companies require this (and lots of workers don't want to work that long), then new companies will enter to take advantage of the cheap labor supply of those unwilling to work 16 hour days.

Meanwhile, the companies requiring 16-hour days would have workers leaving, forcing them to cut production, raise hours (!), or employ more workers. To employ more workers they will have to offer higher pay. So now you have an industry with high-paying jobs and 16-hour workdays in some companies and (relatively) low-paying jobs with shorter workdays. Seems reasonable to me.


Personally, if that transformation was to happen to my industry, I would go in the opposite direction: trade time for money and work longer hours. On the other hand I know people who would be happy to earn less if they were able to cut their hours to, say, 25-30 per week. The free market is an excellent mechanism for allocating work between both types.

Well that sounds a reasonable answer.

 

[calculusrocks]

This debate makes no sense.

Both "capitalism" and "socialism" require the existence of a much more fundamental social structure. If, say, you had the choice between utter lawlessness under a condition of sustained civil war (such as is the case in some countries of this world) and either of those two choices of decadent ignorance, you'd be only too happy to embrace your "opponent" of this artificial dichotomy.

I presume that nobody is arguing for the dissolution of all social structures.

You cannot actually have "capitalism" - understood as a modern transactional system of fiat currency - unless you have a strong sovreign (state) who holds the monopoly of violence (see Max Weber). Socialism, however, requires no money system (although this is more practical) as it is based in a more "tribal" approach.

No, I'm not arguing for some form of anarcho-capitalism. I was simply contrasting. I don't believe at face value that a fiat currency is necessary. For instance, in concentration camps in WWII it's documented that sometimes cigarettes were used as currency. They can easily be divisible, easily be stored, etc. There are commodities that exhibit these kinds properties as well. Currencies can be traded just like any other good, and free individuals would adopt their own standard for intermediary units for trade.

In fact, fiat currency, or bad monetary policy in general perhaps, can lead to severe mal-investments. The housing bubble is an example of this. You had the gov't co-sign these mortgages and you had interest rates by the FED be artificially too low for too long under Greenspan (and now Bernanke). After this, investment banks started placing huge bets on junk bonds, and shoddy collateralized mortgage obligations. This caused the housing boom, which everyone loved, but this was all a mirage and all that time now is lost. We are in the bust.

 

[calculusrocks]

Well that sounds a reasonable answer.

Yes, I was playing some word-games. I do apologize. The reason why 16 hour days wouldn't happen because it simply isn't logical. Companies need labor, so labor is in demand. When labor is in demand, then laborers will be able to pick and choose the terms of their own labor. If labor is in vast, vast, quantities of supply then you may see that so it's not technically impossible.

 

[BoomBoom]

The reason why 16 hour days wouldn't happen because it simply isn't logical. Companies need labor, so labor is in demand. When labor is in demand, then laborers will be able to pick and choose the terms of their own labor. If labor is in vast, vast, quantities of supply then you may see that so it's not technically impossible.

The 10% of Americans that are currently unemployed might disagree with your assessment of labor being in demand.

The fact of the matter is that before regulation, 16 hour workdays (and worse) did happen...so logic be damned.

 

[calculusrocks]

The 10% of Americans that are currently unemployed might disagree with your assessment of labor being in demand.

The fact of the matter is that before regulation, 16 hour workdays (and worse) did happen...so logic be damned.

Labor is not in demand, because who would rationally hire right now? If the employee is a hassle and has to be fired, he gets 99 weeks of unemployment. An employee is becoming a liability! Besides that, there's the uncertainty surrounding the health insurance, cap and tax, and whatever policy the gov't decides to do next. What companies are doing now is trying to adapt by bringing more output with less human resources.

Unemployment is much higher here in Las Vegas, especially among males. Tourism took a hit, and Las Vegas rode the housing market to the top.

I don't approve of cities that are built entirely to trap workers inside. No doubt there were some unpleasant examples in the past, but we've grown out of it through the wealth of technology now available. If a programmer, for instance, wants to work 16 hours a day, why should I force him to not work? Also, voluntary unions did come out of that.

 

[BoomBoom]

If a programmer, for instance, wants to work 16 hours a day, why should I force him to not work?

He can...it just requires that he be paid overtime wages if he does. So the only reason you would force him not to, is that you would rather not pay him time and a half.

 

[CRGreathouse]

He can...it just requires that he be paid overtime wages if he does.

Not likely as a programmer. They're usually on salary, not wage.

 

[edpell]

If the employees are not willing to work 16 hours for 8 hours of pay the company can always move to India, China, Egypt, Russia were people will work 16 hours for 8 hours pay. Or more realistically 12 hours and day for 1 hours pay (US).

 

[CRGreathouse]

Or more realistically 12 hours and day for 1 hours pay (US).

Right, at exchange rates, but more like 12 hours work for 3 hours pay PPP. (Where's the 'ha ha only serious' smiley when you need it?)

 

[Al68]

The fact of the matter is that before regulation, 16 hour workdays (and worse) did happen...so logic be damned.

And they happen now. I personally work >16 hrs/day routinely.

The current limit on voluntary work for adults in the U.S. is 24 hrs/day.

It was never private companies, or capitalism that ever made anybody ever work a single hour. The only involuntary work ever performed in the U.S. is demanded by government.

How about a vote for the most influential person in modern history? My vote goes to Karl Marx by a landslide.

 

[Al68]

If the employees are not willing to work 16 hours for 8 hours of pay the company can always move to India, China, Egypt, Russia were people will work 16 hours for 8 hours pay. Or more realistically 12 hours and day for 1 hours pay (US).

Are you aware that the dollar has no intrinsic value? Its value is determined by how hard a dollar is to obtain.

Making dollars easier to obtain only reduces their buying power.

 

[edpell]

Right, at exchange rates, but more like 12 hours work for 3 hours pay PPP. (Where's the 'ha ha only serious' smiley when you need it?)

Yes forgive me purchasing power parity is an important factor. ;)

 

[CRGreathouse]

Yes forgive me purchasing power parity is an important factor. ;)

I was, of course, supporting your point. (I trust you knew this, but for the benefit of others...)

 

[edpell]

I was, of course, supporting your point. (I trust you knew this, but for the benefit of others...)

Yes I understood. I was just sharing the humor with you. :)

 

[jgens]

And they happen now. I personally work >16 hrs/day routinely.

The current limit on voluntary work for adults in the U.S. is 24 hrs/day.

It was never private companies, or capitalism that ever made anybody ever work a single hour.

True, but historically private companies have been able to pay their employees so little that they needed to work 16 hours/day in order to afford the food for their family; not to mention the fact that 16 hour work days were often mandatory.

The only involuntary work ever performed in the U.S. is demanded by government.

Have you forgotten about slavery?

 

[AlexES16]

I was reading many coments and looks like the comentators think tha USA gov is a socialist gov but in fact is not. In socialist society the workers own the means of production and they run it democratically, the same with goverment. A workers democracy by the majority and for the majority.

So i think is a not good comparation.

 

[AlexES16]

I have doubt about capitalism in this aspects:

-How does capitalism protects the enviroment?
-How does capitalism improves the health of population?

If company A uses mercury in X product to save money and increase profits at the expense of destroying the environment and the health of population. How you regulate things like this.

Are consumer rights from capitalism?

Wich is the role of government in a capitalist oriented society?

And the point of the hours of work is still not clear. A popular tactic used by companies in my country is to pay little to people in the 8 hours of work, forcing them to work extra hours and they still live in precarius conditions.

 

[AlexES16]

 

[jgens]

Thanks. And you contend that if I research their writings I will find they argue . . .

I should clarify my point here. Neither Palmer nor Powaski argue that the oppresiveness of stalinism was solely responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union; however, they do argue that it was a significant contributing factor along with other important issues like a stagnant economy. Both historians address the thesis that the oppressive nature of stalinism catalyzed the collapse and note that this thesis does draw support from some members of the historical community. Since I think that both of these historians are reasonably trust worthy and because the thesis that they argue blends both the oppressiveness of stalinism and the eventual failure of the soviet economy, I'm inclined to believe their claims about what other historians believe.

One immediate and obvious issue with that contention requiring clarification is timing. The USSR collapsed in ~1991, Stalin died in 1953. Do you contend (or these historians) that Stalinism (vice socialism) lingered on as the USSR's political system all the way through Gorbachev and Glasnost?

While the USSR didn't suffer purges on a stalinist scale after his death in 1953, the KGB was still very active until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. I don't think that anyone doubts that the USSR was an extremely oppressive nation, even after the death of Stalin.

 

[mheslep]

...
While the USSR didn't suffer purges on a stalinist scale after his death in 1953, the KGB was still very active until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. I don't think that anyone doubts that the USSR was an extremely oppressive nation, even after the death of Stalin.

I agree. The question then is what is and what is not Stalinism, or better yet, how does one go about labeling one aspect of the USSR Stalinist, and another somehow different aspect of the society as Socialism?

 

[Max Faust]

Well, I would challenge anyone to point at an existing PURE "capitalist" system anywhere. It simply doesn't exist. It couldn't. It's just a word that has been invented by propaganda specialists. Claiming that the USA is capitalistic is just ridiculous. The people gets taxed out of their ears all the time. The only real difference between the USA and, say, France; is that in the USA the people gets taxed by private interests (through the boom-bust cycles of inflation-driven economy) whereas in France they get taxed by the state. Whereas it's possible for an individual to get "rich" in both places, it's a lot easier to get "poor" in the USA.

The whole idea of "socialism" is to insure society as a whole against the very real and very predictable problems that will arise when the wealth of the nation gets too unevenly distributed. Why would anybody need to be a billionaire? What use does society have for billionaires? In a perverse way, it represents a return to a feudal system where the ownership of land is exchanged with the ownership of economical power. The Lords of America are the people who have so much money that they can dictate the politics of the nation.

 

[AlexES16]

Well, I would challenge anyone to point at an existing PURE "capitalist" system anywhere. It simply doesn't exist. It couldn't. It's just a word that has been invented by propaganda specialists. Claiming that the USA is capitalistic is just ridiculous. The people gets taxed out of their ears all the time. The only real difference between the USA and, say, France; is that in the USA the people gets taxed by private interests (through the boom-bust cycles of inflation-driven economy) whereas in France they get taxed by the state. Whereas it's possible for an individual to get "rich" in both places, it's a lot easier to get "poor" in the USA.

The whole idea of "socialism" is to insure society as a whole against the very real and very predictable problems that will arise when the wealth of the nation gets too unevenly distributed. Why would anybody need to be a billionaire? What use does society have for billionaires? In a perverse way, it represents a return to a feudal system where the ownership of land is exchanged with the ownership of economical power. The Lords of America are the people who have so much money that they can dictate the politics of the nation.

Yeah that's why socialism or a very controlled market economy is the way. Capitalism works great for the central capitalist countries but for the 3rd world capitalist countries it fails a lot or it have to be regulated or forget it.

 

[Dale]

-How does capitalism improves the health of population?

By encouraging the development, production, and distribution of new and innovative medical devices, procedures, and drugs through rewarding those doing the hard work required. When is the last time that you have heard of a new drug being developed outside of capitalism?

 

[AlexES16]

By encouraging the development, production, and distribution of new and innovative medical devices, procedures, and drugs through rewarding those doing the hard work required. When is the last time that you have heard of a new drug being developed outside of capitalism?

What about the enviroment?

 

[Max Faust]

When is the last time that you have heard of a new drug being developed outside of capitalism?

When is the last time you have heard about a new disease being developed outside of capitalism?

 

[BoomBoom]

When is the last time that you have heard of a new drug being developed outside of capitalism?

NIH (and similar) funding has developed many new drugs.

 

[calculusrocks]

What about the enviroment?

People have property rights, and when you own a piece of property you badly want to preserve it. If someone intentionally pollutes your land, then they are guilty of a serious crime as it is the equivalent to theft.

 

[mheslep]

Well, I would challenge anyone to point at an existing PURE "capitalist" system anywhere. It simply doesn't exist. It couldn't. It's just a word that has been invented by propaganda specialists. Claiming that the USA is capitalistic is just ridiculous. The people gets taxed out of their ears all the time. The only real difference between the USA and, say, France; is that in the USA the people gets taxed by private interests (through the boom-bust cycles of inflation-driven economy) whereas in France they get taxed by the state. Whereas it's possible for an individual to get "rich" in both places, it's a lot easier to get "poor" in the USA.

This contains several fairly specific claims about life in France and the USA. How do you come to these views? E.g. there are equivalent opportunities to 'get rich' in France and the USA, the commercial 'boom-bust' cycles approximate surplus taxation in France, etc.

 

[mgb_phys]

Well, I would challenge anyone to point at an existing PURE "capitalist" system anywhere.

Chicago in the 30s, big bits of Columbia and some US inner cities now.

There's no police so you have private armies, they extract as much extortion(tax) as possible from dealers/customers/stores in their area. The amount is naturally set by economics, if somebody can't pay they are replaced by somebody who can.

Organized crime is very efficient from an economics point of view.

 

[Dale]

NIH (and similar) funding has developed many new drugs.

Are you seriously citing the NIH as an example of something "outside of capitalism"? It is part of the US system, after all.

In any case, the NIH funding tends to focus on basic science research, which is indispensable, but is not itself the development, production, or distribution of a new therapy technology. Usually the NIH-funded research will identify a target and then private industry will develop the therapies to hit that target. Of course, that is grossly simplified and generalized, but it is a good rule-of-thumb.

 

[Evo]

NIH (and similar) funding has developed many new drugs.

NIH? Please post a link to drugs they have brought to market. Also, who do you think funds the NIH? Us capitalists do.

 

[mheslep]

Chicago in the 30s, big bits of Columbia and some US inner cities now.

There's no police so you have private armies, they extract as much extortion(tax) as possible from dealers/customers/stores in their area. The amount is naturally set by economics, if somebody can't pay they are replaced by somebody who can.

Organized crime is very efficient from an economics point of view.

Well Adam Smith might have baulked at that definition of free market capitalism, the basis for which is un-coerced agreement among parties to transact, including some kind of legal basis to uphold agreed-upon contracts in those transactions. So while I'd agree it is theoretically possible to have some kind of 'godfather' run capitalism - perhaps China qualifies - as soon as someone puts a gun to your head capitalism is out the window.