Socialism Vs. Capitalism

[HondurasKeiser]

Is says where there is no public property. Government options are not socialism if there are other options.

Sure, it is all how you decide to define things. If your definition of socialism is a society with no private property then the only society on the planet that might be socialist would be North Korea and I'm not even sure about that.

And by extension nothing happening in the US or any other country short of North Korea could ever be called socialist or socialism because we will always have private property of some sort.

I'm not sure that is a very useful definition.

I agree that definitions vary (and matter) when talking about this - one of the reasons I think is becomes so hard to define something like 'socialism' is because we're at once speaking about abstract and often abstruse concepts as though they exist, fully-formed, in the material realm while at the same time assuming that real-world systems that claim the mantle or are ascribed the name (fairly or not) of "Socialism" - in fact conform fully and completely to the abstract concept. Socialism qua socialism does not and, I would cautiously argue, cannot exist in the material world because in the abstract it's pure idea; unsullied by other -isms, human frailties, or particular contexts. What can and do exist are examples of systems that approach, on a kind of gradation, the pure idea or abstraction that we call 'Socialism'. The farther from the pure idea a system moves, the more mixed with other "-isms", other abstract ideas, it is. That's why we can call North Korea and the Labour Party of the U.K. and Bernie Sanders 'socialist' and technically be right, yet noting that while they may share some core convictions, predilections, and preferences; they are not the same and to suggest that there's no true difference between Bernie, Keir Starmer & Kim Jong-un would be demagoguery and a category error.

Ken, I find your example of private property interesting and related to what I'm trying to drive at. North Korea may (or may not be, I haven't looked) the only place on earth that interdicts private property. However, it seems to me that socialism as an idea, takes a low view of private property rights generally. Much lower, than say, the common law countries that have tended to instantiate in law, forms of capitalism and thus elevated to a 'right' private property, making it harder to limit or confiscate. Thus, we might look around the world and say that while North Korea is the only socialist country where all property is owned by the state, many other socialist countries both present and past have felt much freer to limit a private citizen's use of their own property, or socialist states have at times been much keener and had an easier time taking property that was once private and making it public (think Labour 70-50 years ago or Venezuelan Petroleum or a majority of the official Cuban economy.

Thus, for the conversation here: instead of arguing about exacting definitions or whether or not this person or that entity is "socialist" it might be helpful to list attributes, underlying principles and tendencies of socialism and to do the same for capitalism.

side note: I recognize that the U.K. is both a common law, capitalist country and that I also hold up their Labour party as socialist. That's kind of my point though, Labour, having a kind of animating ethos that draws heavily on socialist principles, is very disposed to the use of the "private to public" tendency with respect to property. Nevertheless, inasmuch as Labour only approximates the pure idea of socialism and to a certain degree, it necessarily has other influences, other '-isms" that it draws upon to varying degrees, for inspiration and direction. One of those sources is in fact capitalism, with its high view of private property. Thus, while Labour historically has been keen to nationalize the NHS, the railroads and the coal mines, turning once-private industries, public. It's stopped short of nationalizing shops, small businesses and individual's private property. So we can say, that while Labour is socialist, it's not socialist like North Korea is socialist.

[Ken]

To make things more complicated, you also have to define what you mean by "property"

Is it simply just the land that one might hold a title to that was issued by some government authority?

What about something else like water? We have had the same amount of water on earth going back as far as you believe earth's history goes. Current scientific theories suggest that much of earth's water arrived here via icy comets and asteroids during the early formation of the solar system. But whatever theory you subscribe to, we have had an unchanging amount of water on this planet for a very long time.

Most of the world's water is obviously in the form of saltwater in the world's oceans. Which is difficult and expensive to convert to human use. And a large portion of the world's freshwater is locked up in polar ice caps and glaciers or buried deep underground. Which leaves only about 1% of the world's water in the form of liquid freshwater in lakes and rivers and easily accessible groundwater that is easily available for human use.

We also know that all freshwater on earth is the result of natural water cycles. Water evaporates over the oceans, the clouds drift over land where they fall onto watersheds in the form of snow and rain. And that water runs off into rivers and lakes and recharges underground aquifers and eventually runs back into the ocean where the natural process repeats itself. So the water molecules coming out of your tap were probably once in the ocean and will likely wind up back there again in an endless cycle. We can call freshwater "God-given" if you want since it all comes from nature.

So can and should water be considered private property? And what does that mean? Legally speaking when you get your water bill you are actually paying for the SERVICE of providing you with a certain quantity of water. You are not actually buying and taking title to the water molecules that come out of your tap. Likewise farmers who have water rights. What they own is the right to use a certain quantity of water, they do not actually own the actual water molecules.

Some countries like Chile have actually privatized water and water rights are severable from property rights. So if you buy a plot of land in Chile you have to separately buy the water rights to that land or you can't drill a well or otherwise use water on that property. Or if you own a piece of property you aren't using you can sell off the water rights. This has created all sorts of problems over time and a whole industry of water brokers who buy and sell water like real estate agents. Corporations have bought up all the water rights in a particular town and then it basically turns into a ghost town despite the fact that rivers run through it and aquifers lie below. And people are even prohibited from doing things like capturing the rainwater that falls on their roofs. Since someone else already "owns" that water.

So should water be considered private property available to the highest bidder? Or a common natural resource, the use of which is regulated and distributed. But that isn't actually owned. This is a hugely complicated question as anyone who lives in the west or an arid part of the world like the Middle East will tell you.

What is the CAPITALIST approach to water ownership and what is the SOCIALIST approach? Which one provides for a more thriving economy and more individual freedom? It isn't an obvious answer.

[Josh]

People would find a way around it quickly. If you cap the size of corporations then you just end up with 10 different Fords with the same owners working together. One Ford corporation does the engines. One does the electronics, one does the frames, one does the transmissions, etc. You add a layer of inefficiency to no apparent end.

By the same argument, we shouldn't bother with taxes or IRS enforcement because "people would find a way around it quickly".

[Josh]

What is the CAPITALIST approach to water ownership and what is the SOCIALIST approach? Which one provides for a more thriving economy and more individual freedom? It isn't an obvious answer.

Both capitalist approaches to water (selling it off to the highest bidder) and socialist approach (drying up the Aral Sea) seem to lead to poverty, environmental devastation, and do nothing except enrich a select few.

This is an argument against both capitalism and socialism. Tradition is a better place to look: how have people historically considered water to be? How did they think it should be handled?

[Robert]

Is says where there is no public property. Government options are not socialism if there are other options.

Sure, it is all how you decide to define things. If your definition of socialism is a society with no private property then the only society on the planet that might be socialist would be North Korea and I'm not even sure about that.

And by extension nothing happening in the US or any other country short of North Korea could ever be called socialist or socialism because we will always have private property of some sort.

I'm not sure that is a very useful definition.

It is how Webster defines it.

You are presenting strawman arguments and are punished to have to go back and reread all the strawman jokes. I understand it is a continuum. Nothing is absolutely one way or the other. I prefer a way that leans much more towards INDIVIDUALISM, not capitalism. You keep using that term as way to degrade just like the socialists did that started using it.

Government option does not mean socialism if we have other options. A community banding together to provide drinkable water is not socialism.

[Ken]

Is says where there is no public property. Government options are not socialism if there are other options.

Sure, it is all how you decide to define things. If your definition of socialism is a society with no private property then the only society on the planet that might be socialist would be North Korea and I'm not even sure about that.

And by extension nothing happening in the US or any other country short of North Korea could ever be called socialist or socialism because we will always have private property of some sort.

I'm not sure that is a very useful definition.

It is how Webster defines it.

You are presenting strawman arguments and are punished to have to go back and reread all the strawman jokes. I understand it is a continuum. Nothing is absolutely one way or the other. I prefer a way that leans much more towards INDIVIDUALISM, not capitalism. You keep using that term as way to degrade just like the socialists did that started using it.

Government option does not mean socialism if we have other options. A community banding together to provide drinkable water is not socialism.

I'm simply using the terms socialism and capitalism as they were defined in the article that spawned this thread.

Clearly there is no country on earth that is 100% capitalist or 100% socialist.

Mostly we and other countries break up our economy into those sectors that make most sense to operate through largely capitalist mechanisms (manufacturing, agriculture, retail, etc.) and those that make more sense to operate collectively (education, transportation infrastructure, some aspects of healthcare, public lands management, etc.)

Capitalism is not the same thing as individualism or free markets. It has a specific meaning too. The Finns are very individualistic but their society has far more robust public sectors than what we have here in the US.

[Robert]

The Finns are very individualistic but their society has far more robust public sectors than what we have here in the US.

Then you are not using the same definition of individualism that is commonly accepted. By creating your own definitions of words makes it very hard to discuss, so I will bow out.

I do not agree with a lot of the article posted and am sharing the mistake I think the author made. He looked at capitalism instead of individualism.

[Ken]

The Finns are very individualistic but their society has far more robust public sectors than what we have here in the US.

Then you are not using the same definition of individualism that is commonly accepted. By creating your own definitions of words makes it very hard to discuss, so I will bow out.

I do not agree with a lot of the article posted and am sharing the mistake I think the author made. He looked at capitalism instead of individualism.

I actually agree that the author some things wrong. Using his definition of capitalism he identified Haiti as a highly capitalist society when that is not true. Haiti is more of an anarchy. It doesn't have the necessary conditions for people with capital to safely and productively invest in the economy which is why it is so poor and crime-ridden. They need MUCH more law and order and less corruption if they want to make it more capitalist and make it possible for investors to productively invest their "capital" in Haiti. Which is what capitalism actually is.

[Robert]

viewtopic.php?p=192059#p192059

Robert, in my experience, individualism seems to value MY rights, MY life- basically it's about me and what I can or cannot do- so it is no more community oriented than socialism, etc.

I think that is a misunderstanding of the concept of individualism. It values the individual more than the corporation. The individual rights take priority. It does not mean only my rights, but the rights of EVERY individual, thus the Bill of Rights. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit the corporation of the government.

This means my rights matter as much as your rights. That means I can not use my rights to negatively affect your rights.

Christianity is about the choice of the individual. I see this as core to a personal faith, not a corporate faith.

Having a culture of individualism facilities the ability of people to make personal choices of faith. In some Muslim countries, people are forced to accept Islam or die. Individual rights are almost nonexistent.

Does that clarify things a little better?

[QuietlyListening]

I see that as the original meaning but I would say that today many if not most people look at the Bill of Rights as THEIR rights not everyones but theirs. I would agree that long ago that may have been the meaning but there are very few people who when they are calling for the Bill of Rights to be honored are thinking of all, most of those are thinking of themselves.
I am not saying all people are like this but a majority of those who are calling for these rights to be honored- it's about them. It's just the sad progression of society today and pretty much we are told that in the end times people will be lovers of self, lawlessness will abound and I believe we are seeing this.

Just my opinion.