Log in

View Full Version : Th difference between Capitalism and Socialism



ContrarianLemming
14th August 2010, 09:15
I wrote this just now for wikianswers, (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What%27s_the_difference_between_capitalism_and_soc ialism&updated=1&waNoAnsSet=2) I was wondering whether or not everyone is in full agreement with me. It's such a basic point but I have never even checked if we all agreed on it.

I tried to be unbiased, but all my examples sorta suggest a left slant, but by god you should have seen the answer that was there before I edited! It actually said Norway was socialist



Capitalism is an economic arrangement where the means of production are owned privately by individuals, whereby workers are hired to work the means of production while the capitalist sells there product while taking a certain amount of the profit as income or to invest and grow the company, this is considered non labour income
Capitalism can be either market (neo liberalism) or non market (fascism), it can be centralised (corporatism) or decentralised (anarcho-capitalism). It can be regulated or non regulated, thus we see the defining characteristics of capitalism are private ownership, non labour income - though surplus value, which is the difference between a workers income and what his/her wages are - and profit.

Socialism on the other hand is often has works through communal ownership (Syndicalism, stateless communism) or state ownership (Chinese Socialism) of the means of production, though these are not defining points, rather it is the position workers are in, in capitalism, the worker must live off the capitalist by selling themselves for a certain amount of hours ("wage slavery") to a capitalist, though in socialism the workers control the means production.

This means the most distinct difference between capitalism and socialism is is based around who controls the means of production - workers or capitalists?
This is why certain socialists (mutualism) consider certain forms of private property economics to be socialist, such as Individualist anarchists, who - though they support private property - consider themselves socialists because the workers both control and own there workplace (a worker co-operative), as opposed to the state or the public.

Thus we see that instead of socialism being state control, or no market, it is in fact considered by it's proponents to be worker control and self management (autogestion) while capitalism, instead of being defined by the free market and competition, is in fact more accurately defined as private ownership coupled with non labour income through profit (or "usury"), also taking the forms of rent and interest.

This also means that despite popular claims, the social democracies of Scandinavia are in fact capitalist, while the former Soviet Union was not socialist.

Red Commissar
14th August 2010, 17:39
I don't think you need to put examples after each phrase in parenthesis. If you're writing this for a site that structures in a Q and A fashion, someone else might come around and claim otherwise and detract from the body of your statement.

For example, I don't think a decentralized free-market is a feature unique to anarcho-capitalism, or that fascism represented capitalism that was not guided by market forces.

mikelepore
14th August 2010, 18:28
Capitalism can be either market (neo liberalism) or non market (fascism), it can be centralised (corporatism) or decentralised (anarcho-capitalism). It can be regulated or non regulated

I have never heard of using the terms "centralized" or "decentralized" in reference to capitalism. In my experience, people who call for "anarcho-capitalism" are just supporting the idea of having no regulations. They usually say things like: "There shouldn't be a board of health that sends inspectors to ensure that there are no rats in the restaurants. The owners of the restaurants have a right to have rats. If the customers don't like it, then they don't have to go out to eat."

Anarcho-capitalism is also impossible because it's in no one's material interest. It's not in the interest of the working class, and it's not in the interest of the capitalist class either.

Also it wouldn't be "anarcho" anything, because any enforcement of private property requires a powerful state. The supporters of the idea use the name "anarcho" in the same way that supporters of forced pregnancy use the name "pro-life"; that is, the choice of the name is part of the propaganda. When I believe that movements are not entitled to the names that they have chosen for themselves, then I refuse to call them by the names that they want.

mikelepore
14th August 2010, 18:39
"There workplace" and "there product" -- these should be spelled "their" (third-person possessive pronoun).