LogFAQs > #934766640

shipwreckers posted...

I still don't understand why we can't find a balance between "capitalism" and "socialism." On paper, both systems have GOOD concepts. People helping others in need (socialism) is a good thing. People keeping their hard-earned money (capitalism) is a good thing.

Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why can't we let the good portions of each contribute to our economic decisions (while fighting the detrimental extremes)? This isn't rhetorical. I sincerely wonder why it's so hard to find a balance here.

Because that's not what happens in reality. In reality a socialist government will exhibit massive amounts of control which results in mono-party systems, heavily restrictive laws, and an outright destruction of the private enterprise.

Imagine, if you would, a cookie business. Said business wants to sell cookies and decides that coconut cookies would be a good investment. However they do not print a warning on the label saying 'contains coconut' because they believe that it's common sense that they contain coconut since they are coconut cookies. The government can sue them and demand a recall. If people demand cookies be tested to ensure health that's lab fees and a product loss. If your workers demand a wage increase that's a loss of revenue and if it becomes a federal law then there isn't even a chance to negotiate. Eventually you have to either lay off workers or increase the price of your cookies just to break even. All the while the government power grows and grows.

When the government ends up seizing the means of production it becomes effectively the only business in town. There is little, if any, competition between businesses because all of the businesses are controlled by the government or so heavily regulated that they are effectively controlled. As a result they can charge whatever they desire, stifle any business that poses a threat with layer upon layer of regulation and law while ignoring the very same for their own companies and factories, provide as much product as they so desire (and it's a terrible idea to provide a large amount of product in said case), and channel wealth into programs that they desire (I.E. military, law enforcement, and embezzalment) especially since they control the media resulting in a population that can be easily misguided and misinformed. Anyone or anything that the government likes will be praised while anyone whom the government dislikes will be condemned. Don't you ever think it's odd that the people in socialist and communist countries who get exposed as corrupt and as embezzlers are the people who express opinions the government doesn't like?

In a capitalist economy this does not happen. For example, MSNBC and Fox news are in direct competition with each other as well as multiple other news sources. As such they are heavily encouraged to provide a good product (news in this case) as well as serve as counter-balances to each other. If the government were to take over one of them then the other would provide contrary news for people to listen to. However if the government were to take over both then they could control the flow of media, especially since profit has been largely removed from the table.

A common misconception is that things like road upkeep and fire houses are 'socialist programs'. They are not. These are things which are commonly utilized by everyone or are essential to providing a functioning society. As such it makes sense that tax money goes into funding such a thing as there would be little to no way to adequately charge people for their service. Especially since it can result in situations in which a fire brigade would let a persons house burn until they paid up which is dangerous and effectively charging under duress. Things like education provide a government option but other such things such as private schools and homeschooling exist which means the government cannot hold control over education. However if these things were to become communist then there would be little, if anything, to prevent the government from educating the youth to believe whatever they desire. If they decide that the populace would be better off believing that the Earth is flat, then they can do so and there will be no way to dissent as no one will know that there is even anything to dissent from. If the government decides to claim that Canada is a bunch of violent cannibals who gleefully attacked America unprovoked in the war of 1812 but were beaten back by the patriotic nationals there would be no one who would know enough about the war of 1812 or Canada who wasn't firmly under the governments thumb to control.

It is true that one or two socialist programs can exist without ruining a capitalist society. However this is pretty much the same sense that you can eat tiny bits of cyanide without harming yourself (apple seeds). It's still dangerous and concerning.

However it may not be an issue for much longer. Social media and many tech giants have effectively created a monopoly in which their word is largely law. Most of them are based in a relatively small area with largely homogenous belief systems and a large staff of workers whom express identical ideals with no dissent allowed. With social media and the internet having become exceptionally important this results in them attempting to have a mass control of information and business. No one competes with companies like google and facebook because no one can and they can lock out anyone who dissents. Anyone who does will struggle at best to get a contrary opinion out while they are permitted to do basically whatever they desire with little fear of repercussion. This is why these companies are so willing to engage in censorship, deal with China, and other things. Because they can easily lock down most of the information to make it hard for the news to spread while working to increase their own wealth, ignore the standards that they set up so that they can become more wealthy, and be beholden to almost no one. Their monopoly effectively kills capitalism. You could even claim it's a pesudo-socialist system just with the monopoly, especially the ideological monopoly, replacing the government.

That's why capitalism and socialism cannot effectively exist together in any meaningfully large capacity. Because capitalism demands competition while socialism demands monopolies, especially government-controlled ones. They are inherently opposed to each other.

---

I am the gentle hand who heals, the happy smile who shields, and the foot that will kick your ***! - White Mage