socialism vs capitalism

[sanctus]

Discussing the worldbank:hypocrisy of capitalism thread, an argument arised which I believe merits a thread on its own.

Tormod (and I think alexander as well) said that, when I talked about social capitalism, it's an oxymoron, i.e. a contradiction in terms: a country is either socialist or capitalist.

Well I do not agree on that.
I define capitalist system as a system where only profit counts. In the following I concentrate my argumantation on a system that wants long term profit, as I agree that court term social capitalism is an oxymoron.
I define a social system a system that cares about the well-being of the individuals fo the system.

Now, let's take a system that understood that if the individuals are well, they will like to be in that system and therefore every year there is a granted profit, as the individuals will not want to change system. So inthis system the long term profit would be better, than in a purely capitalist system, as the fluctuations in productions are smaller and there is a garantie which makes the individuals happy to stay in that system. Such a system I call a social capitalist system: social because it cares of the well-being of the individuals, capitalist, because it does it only for better profit.

An example that my theory is not unfounded:
In the beginnig the chainworkers of the Ford industry did every day the same, what implied that the got sick of it and started to not feel well anymore and produce less. So the chain working was revolutionned and the workers didn't do any more year in year out the same thing, but there was a turnus. The result was the workers felt better and long term profit increased.


Eventually, you might argue that a social capitalism is utopic, well....

[TINNY]

Sanctus,
How do you ensure the well being of the individual? Historical evidence shows that a totally materialistic outlook, meaning the equal possession of wealth among individuals, does not equate to social and individual well-being.
When you get profit, another individual is bound to be deprived of that profit. So how can you protect the well being of the one who does not get profit?

[sanctus]

Originally Posted by TINNY

Sanctus,
How do you ensure the well being of the individual? Historical evidence shows that a totally materialistic outlook, meaning the equal possession of wealth among individuals, does not equate to social and individual well-being.

Show me a historical evidence where there has been an equal possession of wealth among individuals? Comunism doesn't count.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by sanctus

Show me a historical evidence where there has been an equal possession of wealth among individuals? Comunism doesn't count.

I think what Tinny means is that the only way people will ever be equal lies within the spiritual realm, as opposed to the materialistic realm.

I think this topic is very good and will respond later. I'm sick today (some kind of flu has been sweeping through my workplace, hope it's not what I've got because it is nasty) so I may not be able to follow up everything...(do I ever)...

[TINNY]

I think what Tinny means is that the only way people will ever be equal lies within the spiritual realm, as opposed to the materialistic realm.

Have to admit, yes, that's what I had in mind. So, Tormod, I guess I'm getting too predictable for you nowadays.

You know what, I have a feeling that all forms of government has problems because it restricts human freedom. The ones restricted will protest. The only solution is no government. But change has to be step-by-step. We should minimalize control and give more freedom to people a little at a time. When the time is right, there shouldn't be any governance. Somehow, I have this kind of a priori thought that humans are naturally good and so when human freedom is fully manifested, all good and right will prevail. I had this idea a while ago and I'll work on it a bit during this school break. I'll let you know once I get it right.

[Freethinker]

It is not possible to not have a government. One will automatically appear in any vacuum where there is none. Some one/ group will find a way to take over power. Either becuawe it is their personal desire or because the masses want something done on a scale beyond the individual's ability.

Trade regulations, personal protections, transportation, communications, ... all of these things, things we can not do without, need some form of cooperation between groups in order for them to work.

As to the specific topic. The US and many other countries today, esp the industrialized ones, are some form of Socialist Democracy. They contain some combination of individual voting and Government programs that provide various support functions for citizens. Nor do I see any mutual exclusivity between Democracy and Socialism.

Perhaps there is an assumption that Democracy means Capitalistic Democracy. A Democracy merely indicates that the individual citizen votes on issues. Socialism just means that people work to produce, not for pay, and recieve what ever they need without having to buy it.

[TINNY]

It is not possible to not have a government. One will automatically appear in any vacuum where there is none. Some one/ group will find a way to take over power. Either becuawe it is their personal desire or because the masses want something done on a scale beyond the individual's ability.

That's why i mentioned that it has to go through small steps. Hmm.. I'll have to find some way to define governance to exclude trade regulations etc. But hey, cooperation between groups is not governing. It's just an expression of human goodness.

[lindagarrette]

Originally Posted by Freethinker

Perhaps there is an assumption that Democracy means Capitalistic Democracy. A Democracy merely indicates that the individual citizen votes on issues. Socialism just means that people work to produce, not for pay, and recieve what ever they need without having to buy it.

Democracy is a political system majority rule. Capitalism is an economic system of profit maximiztion (survival of the fittest). They are not philosophically related although it would be difficult to imagine capitalism operating effectively within a socialist system since political forces could not allow profit maximization while protecting the victimized.

[sanctus]

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

Democracy is a political system majority rule. Capitalism is an economic system of profit maximiztion (survival of the fittest). They are not philosophically related although it would be difficult to imagine capitalism operating effectively within a socialist system since political forces could not allow profit maximization while protecting the victimized.

If it0s difficult to imagine it doesn't mean that it's not possible. As I wrote in the first post of this thread, if there is a system that wants long term profit (i.e a long term capitalist system), they have to figure out that a social system is the one that best assures long term profit.

[lindagarrette]

How long is "long term?"