Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Mohamed1993

Socialism vs. Capitalism Soho Forum Debate

Recommended Posts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJQSuUZdcV. Excellent debate, I think Epstein won this one though, Wolff's arguments were not strong, especially when Epstein challenged him on how democratically controlled financial and labour agencies would sometimes impede freedoms like religious freedom and even press freedom depending on the ideology of those that control those institutions. @Sumerian @hasanhh @King I recommend you guys watch this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Comrades, l do not share your glorification of state enterprises --as if gov't was somehow created gooder than baby Jesus.

The principle socialist argument equates vague feelings of "unfairness" with "inhumanity". That "equality" cannot be limited to "before the law" but must extend into every facet of personal life. Why would l want a state-sponsored video game when l do not even like those things? Why would l want state-sponsored housing when my lifestyle is nowhere similar to yours?  And who is going to chose what l read or watch?

And then there is the problem of getting anything done on a daily basis. To illustrate, when the idea of altering the medical profession into a national system was bandied about in the 1960s, the WW2 veterans use to quip, "Anyone who wants socialized medicine was never in the Army". The same can be quip about beliefs in buracracies.

Socialist ideas were developed in the 19th Century as a reaction to the political system of its time: authority of the monarchs were to be replaced by the authorities of political elites. The monarchial abuses replaced by abuses of political flies. Capitalism as a political theory did not develop until Schumpter published and the principles expoused in the 1920s. Keynes gained excessive influence because he wrote a much shorter treatise and all its failings led to the rejection of his ideas by the 1980s.

The basic question is "what is or not to be state owned?". Municipal water and sewer work pretty well. Some American localities municipalized electric power so it was bought in bulk from a generating utility and its transmission system. Some places still have it while others discontinued it. Financial activities are mixed. Private banks have some regulation because they are de facto public institutions. Yet, every 20 to 25 years, FreddieMac and FannieMae get into real problems from civil service protected mismanagement (the last time because they were run like hedge funds). 

To summarize, take a minute for this:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFaIcx0WkOY 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Green Knight said:

bureaucracies

Thanks. My spelling mistakes and typing errors are getting more frequent. ln my second line up there, l had to look up "argument" because l can't remember whether there is an "e" or not anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Sorry Comrades, l do not share your glorification of state enterprises --as if gov't was somehow created gooder than baby Jesus.

The principle socialist argument equates vague feelings of "unfairness" with "inhumanity". That "equality" cannot be limited to "before the law" but must extend into every facet of personal life. Why would l want a state-sponsored video game when l do not even like those things? Why would l want state-sponsored housing when my lifestyle is nowhere similar to yours?  And who is going to chose what l read or watch?

And then there is the problem of getting anything done on a daily basis. To illustrate, when the idea of altering the medical profession into a national system was bandied about in the 1960s, the WW2 veterans use to quip, "Anyone who wants socialized medicine was never in the Army". The same can be quip about beliefs in buracracies.

Socialist ideas were developed in the 19th Century as a reaction to the political system of its time: authority of the monarchs were to be replaced by the authorities of political elites. The monarchial abuses replaced by abuses of political flies. Capitalism as a political theory did not develop until Schumpter published and the principles expoused in the 1920s. Keynes gained excessive influence because he wrote a much shorter treatise and all its failings led to the rejection of his ideas by the 1980s.

The basic question is "what is or not to be state owned?". Municipal water and sewer work pretty well. Some American localities municipalized electric power so it was bought in bulk from a generating utility and its transmission system. Some places still have it while others discontinued it. Financial activities are mixed. Private banks have some regulation because they are de facto public institutions. Yet, every 20 to 25 years, FreddieMac and FannieMae get into real problems from civil service protected mismanagement (the last time because they were run like hedge funds). 

To summarize, take a minute for this:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFaIcx0WkOY 

 

Not sure you watched the video, but Wolff doesn't advocate state control really. He advocates worker owned cooperatives, instead of an employer employee type of relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Not sure you watched the video,

The first part and after l got his premises l clicked off. Reason being that l have heard and in college studied this kind of debate and there was nothhing new to listen to or consider. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Not sure you watched the video, but Wolff doesn't advocate state control really. He advocates worker owned cooperatives, instead of an employer employee type of relationship.

The only real problem with this argument is capitalism doesn't have a problem with "worker owned co-operatives", there isn't a law within capitalism that is against this.

Capitalism would say you can establish whatever you like, whether it be employer-employee or worker-owned businesses (which exist in capitalist states) but to be successful within capitalism you simply have to gain the most profit and beat your competitors in the market. That's all. 

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Thanks. My spelling mistakes and typing errors are getting more frequent. ln my second line up there, l had to look up "argument" because l can't remember whether there is an "e" or not anymore.

Grind fennel seeds with almonds and add a little honey to taste and take a teaspoon or two twice a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sumerian said:

The only real problem with this argument is capitalism doesn't have a problem with "worker owned co-operatives", there isn't a law within capitalism that is against this.

Capitalism would say you can establish whatever you like, whether it be employer-employee or worker-owned businesses (which exist in capitalist states) but to be successful within capitalism you simply have to gain the most profit and beat your competitors in the market. That's all. 

Yes, what socialists argue is that capitalism inherently isn't going to produce this on its own, it took for example the effort of unions to get us to a 40-hour work-week. Capitalists disagree and say it was technological progress. There isn't a problem with having unions in capitalism, but then again capitalism would enable an employer to fire an employee if they joined a union and in capitalism, since the free market controls the scarce allocation of resources, the argument would be that unions would be useless if the wages are a reflection of basic demand and supply. So some advocate state intervention, but not all, many advocate mass mobilizations etc. without the interference of the state. The question is when the latter happens, would the capitalist get the state to intervene to defend his business? If yes, then is he even really a capitalist?

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who are interested there have been some very interesting studies done on worker-owned cooperatives, they tend to do better than privately owned enterprises, because it acts as a shield against perverse incentives. https://hbr.org/2018/08/why-the-u-s-needs-more-worker-owned-companies. https://www.co-oplaw.org/special-topics/worker-cooperatives-performance-and-success-factors/. Also, a good example of it is Mondragon in Spain; https://medium.com/fifty-by-fifty/mondragon-through-a-critical-lens-b29de8c6049

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Yes, what socialists argue is that capitalism inherently isn't going to produce this on its own, it took for example the effort of unions to get us to a 40-hour work-week. Capitalists disagree and say it was technological progress. There isn't a problem with having unions in capitalism, but then again capitalism would enable an employer to fire an employee if they joined a union and in capitalism, since the free market controls the scarce allocation of resources, the argument would be that unions would be useless if the wages are a reflection of basic demand and supply. So some advocate state intervention, but not all, many advocate mass mobilizations etc. without the interference of the state. The question is when the latter happens, would the capitalist get the state to intervene to defend his business? If yes, then is he even really a capitalist?

There are different forms of capitalism, if he runs to the state then he believes in state capitalism. But if this was a free market, which I think Epstein believes in, then he wouldn't be able to run to the state because the state will have little or nothing to do with the economy.

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, notme said:

What is state capitalism? 

Where state and industry/big business are in cahoots and plan the economy together. It causes monopoly, gives tax breaks to certain businesses, and eliminates competition from smaller businesses. It is the current model in the US and the West but it is much worse in China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

For those of you who are interested there have been some very interesting studies done on worker-owned cooperatives, they tend to do better than privately owned enterprises, because it acts as a shield against perverse incentives. https://hbr.org/2018/08/why-the-u-s-needs-more-worker-owned-companies. https://www.co-oplaw.org/special-topics/worker-cooperatives-performance-and-success-factors/. Also, a good example of it is Mondragon in Spain; https://medium.com/fifty-by-fifty/mondragon-through-a-critical-lens-b29de8c6049

That's good, even though I don't know how good they can really get because the top businesses are all traditionally hierarchical, but even if we suppose they do better, like I said capitalism has no issue with it. If they can win over the market, and created profit, they've suceeded. Doesn't matter how it is done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...