Socialism vs. Capitalism

dumpydooby2
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-07-08
User is offlineOffline
Socialism vs. Capitalism

We'll start from the beginning. Here are a few premises that I want you to keep in mind (or refute, if you care to and can).

  • Man does not survive in stasis.
  • A man is an individual, sentient and conscious unto himself.
  • Production is the result of man's effort.
  • Freedom is the condition of being free: that is, having the ability to choose every aspect of one's circumstance within one's means.
  • The ultimate choice (choice to which all other fundamental choices can be boiled down) is: to continue to live, or to die.
  • Slavery is the condition of not being free: that is, having less than full control over one's circumstances, even within his theoretical means.

So now let's look at these two opposing political philosophies: capitalism versus socialism.

The undergirding philosophical position of capitalism is that man is free. To unpack this a bit: man, who does not survive in stasis and therefore must work in order to guarantee his own survival, and who is an individual that is sentient (aware of himself) and conscious (aware of his surroundings) unto himself (meaning that his awareness is only accessible and useful to him, until he chooses to communicate his observations), is free, meaning that he has the ability to make those choices which impact his survival -- more or less, all of them -- to the extent that he is able, as a sovereign individual. Consider all this from something of an "economic" perspective (albeit a necessarily simplified one). A man wakes up in the morning and feels hunger. Here, a free man has two options: eat, or do not eat. If he should choose to eat, he must somehow produce food. As a free man, he then gets the product of his effort in the form of something he can consume, as he chose to in the first place. Now let's complicate things a bit, and add multiple players into the equation, as the nature of transaction is really where capitalism and socialism are most clearly shown to be diametrically opposed. This free man of ours decides that the avenue of production most appealing to him is to work for another man as, say, a courier. The first free man approaches the second, interested in this job. He propositions this other free man, who -- as a free man -- can either hire the first free man on the terms he offered, make a counter-offer, or reject the first free man altogether. Two things have happened here. One: the first free man has exercised his right (as a free man, an individual) to seek out a means of production that suits him. Two: the second free man has exercised his right (free man again) to negotiate, accept, or decline a business transaction based entirely on whatever criteria he might employ in order to tender a bargain. If he does not need a courier, he is not obligated to hire one; if he does need a courier but the first man asks for too much (or too little?) in return, he has the freedom to make whatever counter-offer he feels is reasonable; if he needs a courier and both parties are able to reach a mutually-beneficial agreement, they have conducted a transaction as two free men in a purely capitalistic fashion. That is the essense of freedom in a rudimentary economic sense.

Socialism, on the other hand, chains men together with the philosophical proposition that men are in fact not free at all, but slaves to one another. Once again, to unpack this: men, who do not survive in stasis, but must produce in order to consume in order to survive, are not free, to the extent that they cannot make their own decisions as their survival is concerned, but slaves to one another insofar as the individual is, by default, in the service of everyone around him but himself. Consider again the man, and his transactive intentions with an employer. The first man goes to the business owner and asks for work as a courier. In a capitalistic society, that business owner has the option to accept, decline, or counter the first man's offer. In a socialist society, that business owner may very well be forced, by law, to accept the first man's offer. That business owner may very well be forced to pay the first man more money than the business man deems the job to be worth (minimum wage), may be forced to hire an unqualified (or not hire a qualified) first man because of the color of his skin, or his economic status. The businessman is the slave to the first man.

And that is only one aspect of it: consider the logical extension of these premises in terms of the interaction between you and those around you with whom you do not directly do business. The capitalist wakes up in the morning and is hungry, so he goes out, works, produces, earns, and consumes. The capitalist's neighbor has a choice: he can either go out, work, produce, earn, and consume, or: do not work. Of course he knows (as he accepts the premise that man cannot survive in stasis) that if he does not work, he may very well not eat. In a capitalist society, his survival is dependant on his ability, and his willingness to motivate that ability. In other words, if he chooses not to work, he is choosing directly not to survive. This is simply the logical conclusion of the premises that (1) one must consume to survive, and (2) consumption is the beneficial result of work.

But the socialist does not understand this. The socialist wakes up in the morning and is hungry. But he lacks the ability to provide himself with the lifestyle he thinks he deserves. This could be for any number of reasons: his parents may have not been wealthy, so he may not have inherited a fortune. He may be uneducated, and lack the impetus, interest, or capability to educate himself. He may be injured in such a way as to impede his range of motion. He may simply be lazy. In any case -- it does not matter what reason happens to apply -- he feels as though he deserves more than he will work to earn. Fortunately for him, there are people out there who do have the wealth to which he thinks he is entitled. There are those who have inherited it. There are those who are extraordinarily gifted in one field or another, and whose intellectual ability they have converted to masses of wealth. There are those who have a vested interest in a high standard of living, so they simply choose to work hard -- but in a socialist state, none of that matters. Intellectual ability, family prosperity, dedication and hard work: these guarantee wealth, sure, but not to he who possesses the attribute -- they guarantee the wealth to the first man, who cannot or will not earn it by his own means. This is the essense of "wealth redistribution" -- everyone gets an equal piece of the pie, for putting in inequal shares of effort. He who contributes little lives on the prosperity of he who contributes much; that which the prosperous man generates is taken from him by the not-so-prosperous; the prosperous man must apply his superior knowledge, his superior ability, to his field of work and in return he sees the fruits of his effort distributed to the oafs and sluggards around him, regardless of what those oafs and sluggards have done to earn their own survival. The scientist thus is the janitor's slave. The architect is the roofer's slave. The man that invents and engineers machines, is slave to the man that pulls a robotic arm without thought or interest.

Is that what you call fair?

There are those of us who would rather die free than live enslaved.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Nice cut and paste,

Nice cut and paste, troll!  You have already been warned for creating a sock puppet account prior to asking permission to return.  Consider this your second warning.

Credit for the above post can be found here


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: Nice cut and

jce wrote:

Nice cut and paste, troll! You have already been warned for creating a sock puppet account prior to asking permission to return. Consider this your second warning.

Credit for the above post can be found here.

And just when I was beginning to think Tom Cruise was capable of something other than antagonizing others and self-aggrandizement. *Sigh, rips Top Gun poster off wall*

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


dumpydooby2
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-07-08
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: Nice cut and

jce wrote:

Nice cut and paste, troll! You have already been warned for creating a sock puppet account prior to asking permission to return. Consider this your second warning.

Credit for the above post can be found here.

I know the author. The site that you linked is trev's site, and he copy/pasted it from one of Jas0n's posts in another forum. I know both of these guys, and I am the one that linked trev to the post as well. In other words, it's only on that site because I told trev to put it there. I didn't credit Jas0n here on RRS because this site isn't affiliated with any of our communities, so it wouldn't make any difference.

-dumpydooby


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
It is still wrong to cut

It is still wrong to cut and paste something without crediting the author or providing a link to the site.  Actually, it is dishonest since it makes it appear as though it is your original idea.

If that was not your intent, I apologize, but please provide links in the future.  Thanks! 


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: It is still

jce wrote:

It is still wrong to cut and paste something without crediting the author or providing a link to the site.  Actually, it is dishonest since it makes it appear as though it is your original idea.

If that was not your intent, I apologize, but please provide links in the future.  Thanks! 

 

Oh, pray, do not apologize to this cad.  Should I be unfortunate enough to be him, I would avoid claiming that poorly written garbage as my own at all cost.  It is lugubrious to say the least.  He should return to his workbench and fashion something worth reading if he intends any sort of informed discussion.

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Nero wrote: jce wrote: It

Nero wrote:
jce wrote:

It is still wrong to cut and paste something without crediting the author or providing a link to the site. Actually, it is dishonest since it makes it appear as though it is your original idea.

If that was not your intent, I apologize, but please provide links in the future. Thanks!

 

Oh, pray, do not apologize to this cad. Should I be unfortunate enough to be him, I would avoid claiming that poorly written garbage as my own at all cost. It is lugubrious to say the least. He should return to his workbench and fashion something worth reading if he intends any sort of informed discussion.

Even eloquent insults tend to exacerbate sensitive situations regarding other sitemembers. It would behoove you to know that one's vocabulary does not excuse them from allegations of antagonism.

Pray address the subject matter. I have not seen this particular argument regarding the geopolitical future of these differing social ideologies. I will also endeavor to post my own position from a pro-socialist stance soon

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:   Even

darth_josh wrote:

 

Even eloquent insults tend to exacerbate sensitive situations regarding other sitemembers. It would behoove you to know that one's vocabulary does not excuse them from allegations of antagonism.

Pray address the subject matter. I have not seen this particular argument regarding the geopolitical future of these differing social ideologies. I will also endeavor to post my own position from a pro-socialist stance soon

 

I accept my reprimand, as it is well deserved.  I will endeavor to so comply when I post my defense of laissez-faire economies.

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Nero wrote: darth_josh

Nero wrote:
darth_josh wrote:

 

Even eloquent insults tend to exacerbate sensitive situations regarding other sitemembers. It would behoove you to know that one's vocabulary does not excuse them from allegations of antagonism.

Pray address the subject matter. I have not seen this particular argument regarding the geopolitical future of these differing social ideologies. I will also endeavor to post my own position from a pro-socialist stance soon

 

I accept my reprimand, as it is well deserved. I will endeavor to so comply when I post my defense of laissez-faire economies.

It is of no consequence. In all likelihood, it is we who must continue this discussion.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Well then please do begin

Well then please do begin the discussion. I'm taking the position in my signature.

Hopefully this will be a good thread. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10360
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
This is a joke right? No?

This is a joke right? No? Sucks to be the author then.

dumpydooby2 wrote:
We'll start from the beginning. Here are a few premises that I want you to keep in mind (or refute, if you care to and can).

  • Man does not survive in stasis.
  • A man is an individual, sentient and conscious unto himself.
  • Production is the result of man's effort.
  • Freedom is the condition of being free: that is, having the ability to choose every aspect of one's circumstance within one's means.
  • The ultimate choice (choice to which all other fundamental choices can be boiled down) is: to continue to live, or to die.
  • Slavery is the condition of not being free: that is, having less than full control over one's circumstances, even within his theoretical means.

So now let's look at these two opposing political philosophies: capitalism versus socialism.

The undergirding philosophical position of capitalism is that man is free.

Free to enslave his fellow man, sure.

dumpydooby2 wrote:
To unpack this a bit: man, who does not survive in stasis and therefore must work in order to guarantee his own survival, and who is an individual that is sentient (aware of himself) and conscious (aware of his surroundings) unto himself (meaning that his awareness is only accessible and useful to him, until he chooses to communicate his observations), is free, meaning that he has the ability to make those choices which impact his survival -- more or less, all of them -- to the extent that he is able, as a sovereign individual.

That isn't capitalism. That's anything EXCEPT a dictatorship. And even in a dictatorship, people are free to this extent.

dumpydooby2 wrote:
Consider all this from something of an "economic" perspective (albeit a necessarily simplified one). A man wakes up in the morning and feels hunger. Here, a free man has two options: eat, or do not eat. If he should choose to eat, he must somehow produce food. As a free man, he then gets the product of his effort in the form of something he can consume, as he chose to in the first place.

Maybe. Maybe not. Plenty of capitalist societies charge far more for food than one tends to recieve in wages to pay for it. So this is merely a fantasy of capitalism.

dumpydooby2 wrote:
Now let's complicate things a bit, and add multiple players into the equation, as the nature of transaction is really where capitalism and socialism are most clearly shown to be diametrically opposed. This free man of ours decides that the avenue of production most appealing to him is to work for another man as, say, a courier.

Oops, all the spots are filled. No job for you. No food for you. Have a nice funeral.

dumpydooby2 wrote:
The first free man approaches the second, interested in this job.

Already told you, no job for you. Courier position has been filled by people willing to work for less.

dumpydooby2 wrote:
He propositions this other free man, who -- as a free man -- can either hire the first free man on the terms he offered, make a counter-offer, or reject the first free man altogether.

Rejected.

dumpydooby2 wrote:
Two things have happened here. One: the first free man has exercised his right (as a free man, an individual) to seek out a means of production that suits him. Two: the second free man has exercised his right (free man again) to negotiate, accept, or decline a business transaction based entirely on whatever criteria he might employ in order to tender a bargain.

Keep this in mind when we get to the socialism, since you seem to have deluded yourself into believing only a capitalist nation can offer choices.

dumpydooby2 wrote:
If he does not need a courier, he is not obligated to hire one; if he does need a courier but the first man asks for too much (or too little?) in return, he has the freedom to make whatever counter-offer he feels is reasonable; if he needs a courier and both parties are able to reach a mutually-beneficial agreement, they have conducted a transaction as two free men in a purely capitalistic fashion. That is the essense of freedom in a rudimentary economic sense.

But he didn't need a courier. And noone else is hiring. Your free man starves on the street. Experiment failed.

dumpydooby2 wrote:
Socialism, on the other hand, chains men together with the philosophical proposition that men are in fact not free at all, but slaves to one another.

This is a lie, straight up.

dumpydooby2 wrote:
Once again, to unpack this: men, who do not survive in stasis, but must produce in order to consume in order to survive, are not free, to the extent that they cannot make their own decisions as their survival is concerned, but slaves to one another insofar as the individual is, by default, in the service of everyone around him but himself.

False. Prove that socialism makes it's society into slaves. Go for it. Also prove that there are no choices.

dumpydooby2 wrote:
Consider again the man, and his transactive intentions with an employer. The first man goes to the business owner and asks for work as a courier. In a capitalistic society, that business owner has the option to accept, decline, or counter the first man's offer. In a socialist society, that business owner may very well be forced, by law, to accept the first man's offer.

Nope. The business owner is the government, and was fully aware of this free mans desire to work before he even showed up for an interview. He's probably been trained in first aid and a number of safety courses useful in all lines of work, and he's been fully prepared for the position. Compared to the capitalist, just out of high school with no work place experience at all who needs a week or two of training, and can be fired on the spot during any of which. Whereas the socialists free man is guaranteed a job as long as he wants one.

dumpydooby2 wrote:
That business owner may very well be forced to pay the first man more money than the business man deems the job to be worth (minimum wage), may be forced to hire an unqualified (or not hire a qualified) first man because of the color of his skin, or his economic status.

Impossible. That suggestion is so far right field I wonder if you even know the basics of socialism in the first place.

dumpydooby2 wrote:
The businessman is the slave to the first man.

Patently false.

dumpydooby2 wrote:
And that is only one aspect of it: consider the logical extension of these premises in terms of the interaction between you and those around you with whom you do not directly do business.

Since your premises are faulty, the logical conclusion to them must also be, and I shall ignore it completely as a result.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
I concur wholeheartedly

I concur wholeheartedly with Vastet's refutation of the OP.

I believe if we peruse the 'Politics' forum then we will find that this same topic has been broached and allowed to wither on the proverbial vine.

Here

and

Here

In both of those threads, we wind up much the same. lol.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
I don't agree

I don't agree wholeheartedly with Vastet although I do like the point he unwittingly makes.

What the capitalist calls socialism, the socialist calls a strawman.

What the socialist calls capitalism, the capitalist calls a strawman.

Hence my sig, and my not having taken a side in this thread yet.

 

In neither of those other threads was I able to make any points which were responded to.  Unless you want to revive dead threads, perhaps the discussion should continue here.