Capitalism vs. Socialism

:) Now, to begin with, I would like to devote this round to two prospects: rebutting and outlining the flaws of capitalism. In fact, I would actually like to take the time to rebuttal the COMMENTS made so far. 16kadams says: What are examples of Socialist countries, if China, USSR, and Cuba are not examples? You seem to be limiting yourself to the socialist countries that worked, not the socialist countries that didn't. My response: Socialism is actually a period of development in which there is not a country in the normal sense of the word. So, China, the USSR, and Cuba are not socialist, at least not in the Marxist sense. They do of course, label themselves socialist, but they also style themselves as democratic. Should we give up on democracy just because these nations abused it? I think not. Also, as for places where socialism worked or is working, I provide the following examples: Abahlali baseMjondolo(1) in South Africa, The Zapatistas in Mexico, and the Landless Workers movement in Brazil, as well as the Ukrainian Free Territory, and given a little more time perhaps, the Paris Commune. While these places do not conform entirely to my ideal definition, they do show that an economy built around equal decision making is viable. sansvoix says "labor paid for based on capital an employer feels to pay an employee rather than the social value of a product. " LOL My response: By the "social value" of a product I mean its "use-value," that is, the actual use that a product has. In a socialist system, "wages" can be paid in relation to the products workers produce and their consumption as food, industrial stock, and housing, with leisure items being given value as well, just not as great as that of the former commodities. Sansvoix says You are defining socialism so as to pen yourself into the smallest possible definition. Your vision of socialism is one that is untested, and therefore untainted by reality. You can pick flaws in the capitalist system because it has existed, but any attacks on your vision of socialism are met with non-empirical, philosophical objections. Marxism is argued for in the same way as anarcho-capitalism. My response: This is similar to 16kadams comment, so my response is the same as his, but with special emphasis on the last paragraph. I would also like to point out that capitalism cannot be said to "work" in that it increases living standards or industrial output, as there are only a few socialist economies in existence, and these are mostly small in scale and in the third world. Now, as for my rebuttals to YOUR statements. My response to your first statement: But against multinational corporations, the "cha-ching" of the cash register means very little. It usually takes an entire boycotting movement are other protesting effort to say, prevent an oil company from buying nearby land and drilling. Also, if only those with money can "vote" in the national economy, than what about the poor and moneyless? Do not their needs and wants matter as well? Not to mention suffering businesses that cannot operate at their full potential due to a lack of capital to buy material. Just to clarify what I mean by "democratic planning"(you didn't seem to deviate from my meaning, just so you know), I mean an economic planning system in which the needs of people and industries are accounted for in industrial production, by accounting for the voices they have inputed. Not just their meager petitions and comments, but actually through a vote. My response to your second statement: Workers do not necessarily need to receive the COMPLETE value of their contribution, as Marx stated in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, the products of labor should be deducted like so: "First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc. "(2) Yet still, the greater a worker's contribution, then the greater they get out of the profit, because they still recieve their labor's value, and in even greater amounts as the productive forces expand, allowing less to be deducted from their labor. Now, I shall outline the flaws of capitalism, and I shall even put them in number form so as to make them easier for you to respond to: 1. The capitalist market is unpredictable, and can lead to economic collapse by industries' perpetual desire for profit. If industries produce too much goods, then they will not be able to sell them all, resulting in inefficiency and waste, as well as a loss of capital. This hurts the economy, and occurs endlessly in boom and bust cycles. Producers may charge too little for their goods as well, as economic collapses can occur due to a producer's inability to set a price below the rate of inflation. One of the causes of the housing market collapse was homeowners charging more for their homes than consumers could actually afford, causing them to lose money from their investments, as well as excessive borrowing to buy houses, whose sale could not be guaranteed. (3). People often accuse socialism on relying on a flawed perception of human nature, but the stability of a capitalist economy relies on its participators to act rationally, which is difficult to ensure. 2. Regulation of business is often toted as both capitalism's remedy and its ailment, and is flawed due to the power of business in a capitalist nation, and the reportedly harmful effects of regulations on the economy. If say, the minimum wage increases, than either the economy can improve from increased spending, or it will suffer from a loss of employment. Even if regulations are beneficial, than capitalists can fight back, moving their industries and employment overseas in search of a less regulated environment. 3. Competition is very difficult to make fair, as larger corporations possessing larger amounts of capital possess a decisive advantage over traditional "Mom and Pop" businesses. Also, competition can only result in one winner, as one of two competing businesses will eventually capitulate and go out of business, unable to keep up with its competitors superior quality or lower prices. This again shows a consumer's inability to act rationally, as he or she may prefer products of lower price over those of greater quality, and might show little empathy in regards to supporting a smaller, more expensive business over a larger one. 4. Capitalism is contradictory in that it relies on private individuals producing products for their own gain to ensure that society receives its needs. As economist John Maynard Keynes once said "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone. " An oil tycoon may drill near a lake, polluting a water source many depend on, hence failing to contribute to the "greatest good of everyone," yet increase his own personal profit. I look forward to your response!