Capitalism is better than socialism

[StayTuned]

What do you guys think?

While capitalism gives everyone a... more or less... equal opportunity to become successful, to fulfill their own dreams and to be rewarded depending on how much you do, I also think that socialism could get us further as a whole. Wealth would be distributed among the society, instead of a few wealthy individuals, giving everyone the opportunity to raise to their full potential. I am not 100% sure, but wasn't it Star Trek where the world became more or less socialist, with one mutual focus on advancing so far that they can travel across the universe?

[obdigore]

Neither, taken to extremes, works as long as humans are controlling the system.

Controlled Capitalism is better for a resource scarce society. Socialism is better after you are past resource scarcity.

[Daelak]

Neither, taken to extremes, works as long as humans are controlling the system.

Controlled Capitalism is better for a resource scarce society. Socialism is better after you are past resource scarcity.

Couldn't have said it better

[bobo333]

englishman here. we do both. it works very well, thank you very much.

[s_bushido]

Does it have to be one or the other?

In Star Trek, Earth gets by without currency (presumably because you could just replicate whatever you need). Seems extremely unlikely that something similar could happen in our situation, short of developing the same technology.

[Rendia]

Too much of an extreme either way is bad.

Without Capitalism, stagnation sets in due to lack of an ability to better oneself's lot in life.

Too much Capitalism, and you get gross disparities between rich and poor.

[Korgoth]

Neither, taken to extremes, works as long as humans are controlling the system.

Controlled Capitalism is better for a resource scarce society. Socialism is better after you are past resource scarcity.

So in the real world, Capitalism, in Star Trek Socialism.

[belfpala]

Couldn't have said it better

Agreed.

And I'd extend it:

Pure capitalism or pure socialism have never existed in the modern era.

[zerocoolhack]

In an absolute sense socialism is the only way to advance society, but since we live in a world with human corruption we are boned.

[obdigore]

So in the real world, Capitalism, in Star Trek Socialism.

Not really.

We, as humans, are actually past where we need to be to avoid basic resource scarcity. We could currently provide the basic requirements for life (and more!) for every single person on this planet. We don't because of greed, envy, and logistics.

As we continue to advance with robotics and computer technology, the reality is that it gets easier and easier to provide for everyone, yet we don't do it.

[Mormolyce]

Depends what you mean by capitalism really. "Socialism" describes a specific ideology and system of government. "Capitalism" is a loose term that describes a relatively lessaiz-faire attitude to commerce. Capitalism can exist under any form of government.

It's a false dichotomy if you think about it. Apples and neutron stars.

[StayTuned]

In an absolute sense socialism is the only way to advance society, but since we live in a world with human corruption we are boned.

But wouldn't a state driven economy not secure the equal distribution of goods on behalf of society? This would make corruption almost impossible, or at least lower it to the point where it becomes completely insignificant.

[zaface]

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

[Seranthor]

What do you guys think?

While capitalism gives everyone a... more or less... equal opportunity to become successful, to fulfill their own dreams and to be rewarded depending on how much you do, I also think that socialism could get us further as a whole. Wealth would be distributed among the society, instead of a few wealthy individuals, giving everyone the opportunity to raise to their full potential. I am not 100% sure, but wasn't it Star Trek where the world became more or less socialist, with one mutual focus on advancing so far that they can travel across the universe?

Utopia doesn't exist, it never will exist, because folks will eventually get sick and tired of carrying someone else. Socialism doesn't encourage advancement, it doesn't encourage excellence... it encourages the lazy to be lazy because they know they'll be carried, and it eventually encourages those that excell to say "fuck it, why bother"

[Rendia]

But wouldn't a state driven economy not secure the equal distribution of goods on behalf of society? This would make corruption almost impossible, or at least lower it to the point where it becomes completely insignificant.

Okay. So in this "state driven economy", the guy at the top takes his extra cut, off the record ofc, then his buddies get their extra cut, and so on. By the time we get to the end of the line, there is far less than what was started with, meaning less for the "common folk". It can't work unless the human nature of being better/having more than the other guy goes away. And that won't happen.

[Wells]

Utopia doesn't exist, it never will exist, because folks will eventually get sick and tired of carrying someone else. Socialism doesn't encourage advancement, it doesn't encourage excellence... it encourages the lazy to be lazy because they know they'll be carried, and it eventually encourages those that excell to say "fuck it, why bother"

Under socialist democracies just because you won't die if you're poor doesn't mean you won't be better off if you work hard. Socialism doesn't inherently remove to incentive the improve from anyone.

[Badpaladin]

Both systems are wonderful at exploiting people, at least that's my analysis of what I've seen and read.

[Seranthor]

But wouldn't a state driven economy not secure the equal distribution of goods on behalf of society? This would make corruption almost impossible, or at least lower it to the point where it becomes completely insignificant.

State driven economies... isn't that what happened with the Soviet Bloc? How did that turn out? As I recall it was corrupt as hell and the poor only became poorer... or am I mistaken?

Didn't Tito have a state driven economy in Yugoslavia during his presidency?

[Underverse]

Disagree, capitalism fosters internal competition, which is great for wealth creation but also leads to horrible stratification and imbalance of happiness. Happiness should be a guarantee for everyone, but isn't under capitalism.

Socialism is hard to get to without the wealth created by capitalism, so I would say capitalism might be a necessary, but temporary evil. Socialism has more of the happiness guarantee, and also fosters a group-based/greater good mentality, which can lead to advancement and excellence. Contrary to what Seranthor and many others like to think, money is not the only motivator for these two qualities; otherwise, we wouldn't have most of our scientists.

[StayTuned]

Okay. So in this "state driven economy", the guy at the top takes his extra cut, off the record ofc, then his buddies get their extra cut, and so on. By the time we get to the end of the line, there is far less than what was started with, meaning less for the "common folk". It can't work unless the human nature of being better/having more than the other guy goes away. And that won't happen.

Even if that is true, the extend of wealth those people could possibly accumulate is small compared to what is happening right now in our capitalist society. The big major part of wealth would be distributed among the society.