Is this an accurate representation of capitalism vs socialism in your opinion?

the8thark

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Apr 18, 2011
3,990
837
Is this an accurate representation of capitalism vs socialism in your opinion?

 
  • Like
Reactions: Naaaaak

darksithpro

macrumors 6502a
Oct 27, 2016
582
4,492
Can anyone explain what's the difference between free market capitalism vs corporatism and why government subsidies and intervention is a bad idea? Anyone...?
 

DearthnVader

macrumors 6502a
Dec 17, 2015
896
4,873
Red Springs, NC
It has some truth to it, as most good jokes do. I don't think anyone is in favor of the government taking over the means of production, and as I understand it, that is socialism.

However when the "free market" fails to for fill a public need, and millions, or tens of millions of people are going without, be it retirement income, food, healthcare, you name it, it does become incumbent on government to fill the void.

I don't think you'll get much of an argument from most right thinking people, that government social programs are an option of last resort, but you don't let people go without or die because you are afraid of a word.

The Constitution does not specify "Free market capitalism", and it is not a suicide pact.
 

DanielDD

macrumors 6502
Apr 5, 2013
458
1,771
Portugal
Can anyone explain what's the difference between free market capitalism vs corporatism and why government subsidies and intervention is a bad idea? Anyone...?
Let's start with the basics.
Capitalism is a socioeconomic system that rests on three core principles: private property and capital accumulation, right of life, and democracy. These principles work in symbiosis. Your life needs to be protected so that you can enjoy the benefits of private property and capital accumulation. Democracy grants that property and life rights are not taken away from you by an authoritarian enforcer.

Free market capitalism is a type of capitalism, one that solely rests on free market equilibrating mechanisms (supply/demand). Every type of capitalism has this market principle embedded.
There are other types of capitalism, such as welfare capitalism, that rests on an additional equilibrating mechanism: state's distributive policies.

Corporatism is not a socioeconomic system. It is a system of interest representation in politics. Corporatist arrangements integrate interest groups, unions, social movements, and non-governmental organisations and so forth in policy making processes in a cooperative fashion. This contrasts with pluralist arrangements, whereby these organisations compete with each other to lobby politicians.

With regards to your last question, it is not about being a good or bad idea. It is about trade-offs.
A free-market economy is better for investment and getting rich out of nowhere, but it generates more social inequality and all the problems associated with it (higher crime rates, perpetual poverty of certain classes, more segregation and so on).
Government intervention reduces profits because of taxes, thereby reducing investment opportunities. However, it solves the problems usually associated with free market capitalism.

As usual, this is not a "either one or another". It is about accepting trade-offs and finding the sweet spot that benefits all society.
 
Last edited:

DanielDD

macrumors 6502
Apr 5, 2013
458
1,771
Portugal
Not sure what definition of Socialism you maybe referring to, but every definition I know of, does, of course, include a "democratic" government taking control of the means of production, for the "people".
Socialism, in my view, is about redistribution of resources to diminish problems associated with market capitalism. This can be achieved in numerous ways, including redistributive policies or regulations of the free market.
People seem to confuse socialism with utopian socialism, which entails that the basic end of communism (a society with no classes, with no capital accumulation and private property) achieved by peaceful means, usually persuasion of capitalists that such a society is rationally more advantageous to them
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe

DearthnVader

macrumors 6502a
Dec 17, 2015
896
4,873
Red Springs, NC
Socialism, in my view, is about redistribution of resources to diminish problems associated with market capitalism. This can be achieved in numerous ways, including redistributive policies or regulations of the free market.
People seem to confuse socialism with utopian socialism, which entails that the basic end of communism (a society with no classes, with no capital accumulation and private property) achieved by peaceful means, usually persuasion of capitalists that such a society is rationally more advantageous to them
I don't want to be cross, however, we have to deal with the common definition of words, not parse them out like lawyers.

Private property and free market enterprise are good things, but I don't feel that "Capitalism" is any better of a system than Socialism, Communism, or Feudalism. Do what helps people, and is sustainable, I don't care what you call it.
 

DanielDD

macrumors 6502
Apr 5, 2013
458
1,771
Portugal
I don't want to be cross, however, we have to deal with the common definition of words, not parse them out like lawyers.

Private property and free market enterprise are good things, but I don't feel that "Capitalism" is any better of a system than Socialism, Communism, or Feudalism. Do what helps people, and is sustainable, I don't care what you call it.
Neither I am. We should be careful in addressing the definitions of these concepts because their meaning is never clearly define and they change over time as well.
One thing we can agree on, however, is that Capitalism, Communism, and Feudalism are true-socioeconomic systems. Socialism is just a doctrine that emerged under the capitalist system.
 

DearthnVader

macrumors 6502a
Dec 17, 2015
896
4,873
Red Springs, NC
Neither I am. We should be careful in addressing the definitions of these concepts because their meaning is never clearly define and they change over time as well.
One thing we can agree on, however, is that Capitalism, Communism, and Feudalism are true-socioeconomic systems. Socialism is just a doctrine that emerged under the capitalist system.
Everyone having their own definition of words leads to a lot of unnecessary confusion when trying to have a factual conversation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DanielDD

DearthnVader

macrumors 6502a
Dec 17, 2015
896
4,873
Red Springs, NC
I think the definition of 'Socialism' changed in America in the early 1980's

This is a really good comparison of Socialism v Communism.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was of course Communist, but Socialism is usually a transition between some form of free market economics and Communism. The USSR went economically defunct, as many states the embrace Socialism and Communism do. Most of them are hellholes, people can't wait to get out of, or they are on their way to becoming one.

However, a lot of Capitalist countries are on their way to becoming hellholes people can't wait to get out of, mostly because of people's fundamental misunderstanding of what money is, and who should benefit from it's creation and destruction.
 

Raid

macrumors 68020
Feb 18, 2003
2,144
3,951
Toronto
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was of course Communist, but Socialism is usually a transition between some form of free market economics and Communism. The USSR went economically defunct, as many states the embrace Socialism and Communism do. Most of them are hellholes, people can't wait to get out of, or they are on their way to becoming one.

However, a lot of Capitalist countries are on their way to becoming hellholes people can't wait to get out of, mostly because of people's fundamental misunderstanding of what money is, and who should benefit from it's creation and destruction.
Checks and balances are needed in all systems. (BTW it sounds like your using a slippery slope argument that Socialism leads to Communism don't know if that's intended or not).

The USSR communist system did fall apart faster than capitalist systems, but there were many elements in the USSR brand of communism that were not pure and directly contributed to it's downfall. We are seeing pressure on many more capitalist systems as well, and capitalist systems have fallen before.
 

DearthnVader

macrumors 6502a
Dec 17, 2015
896
4,873
Red Springs, NC
The USSR communist system did fall apart faster than capitalist systems, but there were many elements in the USSR brand of communism that were not pure and directly contributed to it's downfall. We are seeing pressure on many more capitalist systems as well, and capitalist systems have fallen before.
Capitalism limps along, from one crisis to the next, and the response to each crisis, by government, is usually socialism for the rich, and capitalism for everyone else.