Poll of the Day > Explain the difference between capitalism and socialism...

(+) Yeah! (+)

Without making mention to wealth/money/currency

---

I'm going to make a confession, I don't actually know the meaning of socialism.

To be fair, the "Socialist" that just ran for president didn't either, because socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

So socialism is worker owned corporations, capitalism is the lack of that system and just privately owned corporations.

Logically I have a hard time denying that sounds like a good idea, but I know it's never ended well. I'd have to ask my brother, he knows more about politics geography and history than me or anyone I've ever met.

---

socialism is when the governmetn does things

---

Capitalism: everyone can make anything they want, including the same exact items to compete in an unneeded marketplace filled with redundant items but the resources to make them are controlled by a select few. Luxuries are indulgent and extravagant but limited to those in control. People are considered the commodity.

Socialism: everyone works to ensure that everyone's needs are fulfilled without over-producing unneeded items with a heavy emphasis on contribution and quality of life. Luxuries are shared and modest. People are caring and cared for.

---

Just a guess and I'm probably wrong.

Capitalism: the markets are controlled by private businesses and the government can't intervene on behalf of the consumer. e.g I can control an entire market and increase prices by 1000% and if anyone doesn't like it then they can leave.

Socialism: the markets are controlled by all businesses but the government is mandated to protect the consumer
e.g I can try to control the market but the government has policies in place to either prevent a monopoly or to prevent prices to go above a certain limit.

---

one analogy might be something like that capitalism is natural selection, and socialism is something like genetic engineering.

---

OniRonin posted...

socialism is when the governmetn does things

and the more stuff it does, the socialister it is

---

The definitions have become increasingly murky, especially because the crony-capitalism in the US bears little resemblance to actual free market capitalism although our market is free in many important regards (even if the government both protects businesses when they would fail and businesses petition government to pass regulations to stifle competition by creating entry barriers). And, generally speaking, things aren't necessarily going to be exclusively one thing or the other. The easier differentiation is government solutions vs free-market solutions. Government-run energy and transportation is more socialist/communist whereas capitalism puts those fields within the realm of individuals (but even then you have regulation rather than a completely free market)

The easiest working definition for capitalism tends to concentrate power in the hands of the people as individuals whereas socialism/communism/etc puts power in the hands of a government ostentatiously acting on the behalf of people as a collective. Realistically speaking, though, socialist systems don't serve the people because governments exist to preserve themselves first and foremost (and to benefit members of government in that process). That's why you typically don't see peaceful dissolution of government, instead it's always a bloody affair. By contrast, capitalism is a great system for anybody with an entrepreneurial spirit, intelligence, and a willingness to work hard, but it doesn't favor low-performers. However, overall lives tend to be better under systems with a good amount of capitalism because it does more to drive innovation than socialist/communist systems, either because competition provides a crucible for innovation, there's more incentive to innovate, or just because it's an individualistic system (thereby nurturing things like creativity)

Under every system, you're inevitably going to have elites. However, it's easier for elites to preserve their power in socialist/communist systems because they can control who challenges their power. And any large-government system is going to be massively corrupt.

---

I thought of a weird one...

You have a socialist who is anti-communist, and a communist who is anti-socialist

...

How does that even?

---

You can be socialist and anti-communist. I'm less sure whether you can be communist and anti-socialist, though.

---

socialism is when you have to wait in line for things

---

capitalism is when you make letter grownup

socialism is when you get disease


---

In capitalism, one group of people fuck everyone else over.

In social, a different group of people fuck everyone else over.

-Fin-
---

Socialism is when there's only one kind of toilet bowl cleaner instead of 600 with different packaging based on each conceivable demographic of toilet bowl user

---

Capitalism = Socialism with Taxes
Socialism = Taxes with Capitalist/Government

People tend to forget, citizens in 'Socialist' type countries pays some of the craziest tax rates (up to 70%)

Zeus posted...

You can be socialist and anti-communist. I'm less sure whether you can be communist and anti-socialist, though.

Going by the original meanings, socialism is the path to communism. Stages that are distinct, so the socialist + anti-communist combination works.
The second combination is murkier, mainly because no country has ever finished Marx's path to True Communism/Marxist Utopia. Instead, dictatorships got into power during the final steps towards it and kept the power close instead of spreading it out. In modern usage, those dictatorships are what is called communism.

---

You see capitolism be all like this: yes and socialism be like this: aww yeah.

Capitalism: You own your labor

Socialism: You don't own your labor

Easy.

---

Talking about capitalism without mentioning money is like explaining toast without mentioning bread.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Talking about capitalism without mentioning money is like explaining toast without mentioning bread.

I mostly left that out since even in deep state communism... you still exchange currency for goods and services

---

Wanded posted...

Capitalism: You own your labor

Socialism: You don't own your labor

Easy.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_trade

---

Lokarin posted...

I mostly left that out since even in deep state communism... you still exchange currency for goods and services

In a functional system. But most communists seem to think farmers will just accept a canoe in exchange for a pig despite having no use for it.
---

Capitalism: Greedy people vie with each other to have the most things, using the general population as slaves that are controlled by a small percentage of the population and corporations as a whole.

Socialism: Greedy people manipulate a system where everyone should be working for the better good and sharing the products created but instead end up getting a tiny percentage of the goods while the select few live like kings.

---

wolfy42 posted...

Capitalism: Greedy people vie with each other to have the most things, using the general population as slaves that are controlled by a small percentage of the population and corporations as a whole.

Slaves in specific sectors. Capitalism can't force you to pay silly rates to use a gym or buy a car.
---

OniRonin posted...

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_trade

Yes, socialism is where everyone becomes slaves to the government, i agree.

---

Socialism is when markets are used to buy and sell human lives to private interests

---

socialism is when you eat a lot of bread i think

---

Wanded posted...

Capitalism: You don't own your labor

Socialism: You don't own your labor

Easy.

Fixed that for you.

---

Zareth posted...

Fixed that for you.

You have to be paid a minimum amount for labour given.

Not that that's mandatory in Capitalism or Socialism.
---

TheWitchMorgana posted...

socialism is when you eat a lot of bread i think

Socialism is when the government pays for your artisanal soda subscription instead of your mom.

---

Zareth posted...

Socialism is when the government pays for your artisanal soda subscription instead of your mom.

sounds good to me

---

I asked on reddit and got a relatively interesting answer

Socialism and Communism are overlapping with only a few key differences - Socialism is non-revolutionary and maintains a state, tries to enact socialist ideas through reform/democracy. Communism is revolutionary and does not maintain a state, tries to enact socialist ideas through public force (which doesn't require violence, can include things such as strikes and seizures)

---

Let's say you can trade 100 loaves of bread for an oven, and each oven can bake 1000 loaves of bread before it breaks down.

In capitalism, a guy trades 100 loaves for an oven. He then lets others use it, for a price. For every 5 loaves they bake, they must give the owner one loaf. By the time the oven breaks down, the owner has accumulated 200 loaves. He has ended up with more bread than he started with, despite not working. He can then trade the loaves for more ovens, continuing the process.

In socialism, a group of workers own an oven. Where it came from is unclear - maybe they seized it in the revolution, maybe it was provided by the government. The workers hold a vote and decide that everyone who bakes bread must give one loaf out of 10 to a common storage. By the time the oven breaks down, the storage will have 100 loaves, and the workers can trade those for a new oven.

Socialism is non-revolutionary and maintains a state, tries to enact socialist ideas through reform/democracy. Communism is revolutionary and does not maintain a state, tries to enact socialist ideas through public force

That sounds more like a Menshevik/Bolshevik split. Socialism can be revolutionary and even violent. It isn't easy to upend capitalism and seize the means of production while playing with the rules of a capitalist system. And the capitalist financial markets are prone to collapse from even a gradual shift towards socialism.

---

---

PrettyBoyFloyd posted...

seconded

Lokarin posted...

Without making mention to wealth/money/currency

Capitalism = Enslaved to corporations
Socialism = Enslaved to the mob (like mob mentality)

---

Lokarin posted...

I asked on reddit and got a relatively interesting answer

Socialism and Communism are overlapping with only a few key differences - Socialism is non-revolutionary and maintains a state, tries to enact socialist ideas through reform/democracy. Communism is revolutionary and does not maintain a state, tries to enact socialist ideas through public force (which doesn't require violence, can include things such as strikes and seizures)

Reddit is a leftist hive mind so i wouldn't expect a different answer

https://youtu.be/LjjG-_ac68k?t=812

---

Wanded posted...

Reddit is a leftist hive mind so i wouldn't expect a different answer

https://youtu.be/LjjG-_ac68k?t=812

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-faCh8BUEts

---

AnnoyedCops posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-faCh8BUEts

lol

---

Imagine an MMO. In this mmo the best loot drops from the hardest bosses. So people play to challenge as hard a boss as they can manage to get as good loot as possible. However only 1% of the player base is capable of challenging the hardest boss and most people just stop around the mid boss levels if they even get anywhere at all.

That is capitalism.

Now imagine an MMO where the gear is distributed evenly and completely independent of the difficulty of boss you face. You could get a legendary piece of gear just as likely from killing the final boss as you could from killing some random wolf. Gear is acquired utilizing loyalty icons obtained from logging on and doing basic chores instead of from dungeons or bosses. Everyone can have the best gear technically but only those loyal to the game will actually get any gear worth anything and there's no reason to attempt to try the harder stuff.

That is socialism.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Imagine an MMO. In this mmo the best loot drops from the hardest bosses. So people play to challenge as hard a boss as they can manage to get as good loot as possible. However only 1% of the player base is capable of challenging the hardest boss and most people just stop around the mid boss levels if they even get anywhere at all.

also a whole bunch of players start with debuffs which means they have no way to even think about the higher content. sometimes you have multiple, and its mostly random whether you can actually do anything about them or not, and more often than not if you can get rid of them then youll be putting in way more effort than anyone in the 1% did

also, theres a whole bunch of starting areas you can get, which one you get is random, and each one has different resources, enemies, access to quests and gear, etc., so the majority of the people in the 1% just got the best starting area and no debuffs. unfortunately people defend this uneven system because it IS technically possible for someone with lots of debuffs and the worst starting area to eventually claw their way to the top, although very few manage it

---

TheWitchMorgana posted...

also a whole bunch of players start with debuffs which means they have no way to even think about the higher content. sometimes you have multiple, and its mostly random whether you can actually do anything about them or not, and more often than not if you can get rid of them then youll be putting in way more effort than anyone in the 1% did

also, theres a whole bunch of starting areas you can get, which one you get is random, and each one has different resources, enemies, access to quests and gear, etc., so the majority of the people in the 1% just got the best starting area and no debuffs. unfortunately people defend this uneven system because it IS technically possible for someone with lots of debuffs and the worst starting area to eventually claw their way to the top, although very few manage it

It doesn't help that the alternative system renders playing the game completely pointless due to the only thing that matters being how loyal you are to the game.

However, I think we can agree, political ideology makes for terrible mmo design.

---