Socialism Vs. Capitalism

What are people's thoughts on this?  Is capitalism dying, is socialism coming up?

Modern socialism does not oppose capitalism, at least in my mind. While the latter has its flaws and is virtually inevitable, it should be made as social-friendly and fair as possible, as it was done in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and, to some extent, Finland and Canada. That's what I think.

Is socialism coming up? I wouldn't say so.


Edited by ALotOfBottle - February 22 2017 at 11:05

I don't see capitalism as being in decline -- the rich and powerful generally are not relinquishing control or having control taken out of their hands by the public, and capitalist economies are not going away that I can see. As for socialism, I'd say that social activism is on the rise, but, to use the US as an example, there isn't any really coherent socialist movement that directs the many who now identify as socialist in the US. Socialism used to be a dirty word there, but with Bernie in part, it has become much more mainstream. Liberalism has also been on the rise in the US.

And regarding an earlier, point, especially in modern terms the two need not be mutually exclusive, and one can have a level of compatibilism particularly when it comes to the greater community regulating production, distribution and exchange (even if the means of production, distribution and exchange are still largely controlled by private interests). They are primarily economic theories to me. One traditionally favouring ownership and control of resources by the masses and the other by private parties. Socialism can mean a lot more than that, and I think that when we're using the terms we should be careful to define what we mean by them. To quite a few being left-leaning is automatically synonymous with being a socialist, as is anyone who supports many social reforms.

Edited by Logan - February 22 2017 at 11:26

Xurtio wrote: lazland wrote: Xurtio wrote: What are people's thoughts on this?  Is capitalism dying, is socialism coming up? I have many thoughts on this, and will, no doubt, bore you sh*tless with them as the thread progresses. No, capitalism is not dying, but the way it is operated will change. It has always adapted, and will continue to do so. No, socialism is not coming up. I regret to say that it is, in fact, dying, certainly in the developed world. It desperately needs to adapt, but it's proponents are singularly failing to do so. In fact, it is populism which is coming up. None of whose proponents could conceivably be described as socialists. Would you say that part of the adaptations in capitalism are largely influenced by socialism?  It seems to me that a lot of populists at least espouse socialist rhetoric.

No, I would not. Part of the trick of successful politicians, especially right wing and populist politicians, is to essentially fool working and poor people that they are on "your side". "Doing the right thing". "Looking after hard working families, those who do the right thing". Most of it is a pile of vacuous bollocks.

All political parties in Western countries have to do is form a coalition of the willing, the believers, the sceptics, and those who really could not give a toss, in an election to win a majority, and then govern in such a manner which doesn't piss said coalition off too much.

This works at a disadvantage to those who do not vote, the disenfranchised, and in areas such as mine where the population is too low compared to large constituencies as to make a palpable difference even if people could be arsed.

Capitalism adapts extremely well in keeping itself relevant and meaningful to just enough people, and keep living standards at an acceptable level, so as to not collapse. One of the major reasons for the rise in populism in recent times is a failure of the new global capitalist order to do that efficiently. The coalition is crumbling. It will, though, adapt. It always has. I do, though, foresee some extremely difficult times ahead in that long process.

Another thing. This extraordinarily naive idea that one person, or small group of people, can solve all of our ills is one of the reasons we are where we are. I am afraid that socialist governments, who instinctively believe the state can solve all of society's ills, carry a huge weight for the failure of progressive politics. The original socialists were libertarian, and I believe a return to those values is the only way we can stop the rise of rampant unfairness in society.

lazland wrote:   No, I would not. Part of the trick of successful politicians, especially right wing and populist politicians, is to essentially fool working and poor people that they are on "your side". "Doing the right thing". "Looking after hard working families, those who do the right thing". Most of it is a pile of vacuous bollocks. All political parties in Western countries have to do is form a coalition of the willing, the believers, the sceptics, and those who really could not give a toss, in an election to win a majority, and then govern in such a manner which doesn't piss said coalition off too much. This works at a disadvantage to those who do not vote, the disenfranchised, and in areas such as mine where the population is too low compared to large constituencies as to make a palpable difference even if people could be arsed.

Depends. Both supporters and opponents for each camp tend to have no idea what either mean. 

Edited by JJLehto - March 08 2017 at 23:46

HackettFan wrote: I wonder what the future work will be like. So much of the historical job market has been eliminated by automation, and will continue to eliminate jobs of ever increasing skill levels, will worker ownership be a solution? Or a very narrow and evaporating opportunity? I'd love to hear someone's perspective on this.

interesting.. we've had this discussion before.  An interesting thread on a future of paying people NOT to work. In essense a state supported society. Not sure if you were around for that one.

as a proud and confirmed working class blue collar stiff...with more post secondary education than most white collar workers.... the end result is obvious.

A natural continuation of what we have seen of the last 30 years... the desturction of the middle class.  Who basis was upon good skilled and generally un-educated labor.

Thus the end result of this.. a society lf haves.. and have nots.  The haves... paperpushers, mangers etc. The white collar jobs you don't replace with automation... and the nots.  The service industry.. low paying low skill jobs.

The realm of the middle class being occupied by the few blue collar jobs that can not be replaced by automation. Like my job in which high school drop outs can start at 50k a year and top out at 6 figures.  Funny thing is, as I've pointed out in various threads hitting on this topic, jobs that white america feel are below them and are taken up by minorities and the rapidly emerging minority majority. Me and my best friend took stock just the other day. A shop of 13 people. 3 of us were white.  That is the future I suppose. And yet in my field... nearly half the work force (including me) retires or dies in the next decade or two...leaving a massive shortage in a critical job field that will only see pay rates increase.  Yet again...  Americans with their fixation on getting those (in many cases) worthless degress.. will find jobs based ON those degrees very hard to find. Yet great paying jobs are there.. will always be. And you don't have to... as I did in my youth... rack up thousands upon thousands of dollars of debt to go to college to get.

sexactly man!  That is why the labor rates, high enough as they are to try to recruit and attract workers, will only go higher. Especially in mine that isn't simply hard dirty work but goddamned dangerous at times hahah 

Those fields are going to have a real problem in the next 20 years and that will affect everyone. In some places the minorities can (and already are) stepping up to take what we, white america, are leaving them. Other areas? Like yours perhaps Jim that aren't as diverse?  Ohhh.. will be interesting.

oh and you are one of those types. Love your kind of customers Jim.  They make the job worthwhile. I've actually become friends outside of work with some of my customers.

I get that offer all the time.  Even had an offer from some higher up from the French embassy here ask me to have a drink with him after working at his home. We had really hit it off...spent more time talking than working hahah... but had to turn him down unfortunately.

Alcohol? Oh no we can't do that. Sex though... I haven't.  Been offered a few times.  But many of my coworkers have found it a bit too much to refuse


Edited by micky - March 11 2017 at 09:27

I like programs like socialized medicine but not Socialism per se. I made a living by basically fixing botched music mixes and album mastering. Sometimes by "reverse engineering" some master tapes. etc. This was something that I was very good at as compared to many others. I felt that I should have always been well compensated for my skills, and was, on most occasions. So, Socialism over Capitalism? Not for me.

Edited by SteveG - March 11 2017 at 10:15

In some cases, I have to agree. Skill sets outweigh the paper. In other cases, the paper rules. And that's a part of Capitalism too.