Macroscopic analysis of socialists vs. capitalists

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
I've been discussing politics more recently with my more socialist oriented acquaintances about a broad range of issues; healthcare, taxation, welfare, foreign policy, military, etc etc.

Through this, I have more or less percieved the idea that government in effect saves us from ourselves. All government does is restrict, either in the form of justice, environmental, social, economic, fiscal and the like; forcing limitations on our lives in hopes of forming the greater good unknown by the general population.

Therefore it is my view your socialist and capitalist tendencies all come back to how pessimistic or optimistic you are with regards to the human race. If you believe humans in essence are good people and know the difference between right and wrong, you have no problem giving them more power/freedom in their lives (capitalist). If you think people are in essence greedy, selfish and cannot survive alone; you are more willing to restrict their actions through the governing of their lives.

Please note this point doesn't fit nicely into any political party. Social restrictions run rampant in social conservative issues and the same for fiscal liberal issues where economic/fiscal restrictions run rampant.

Various perceptions of the human race as a whole will in the end determine your political outlook; that's what I have noticed at least.
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
If people are in essence greedy, selfish, and cannot survive alone that does not give anyone a reason to force them to be.

It's much easier to point fingers than be generous, unselfish, and helpful yourself.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
On the flipside those more experienced with life tend to be realists also seeing both sides.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
I'm not sure, I would say someone like Dissipate's position is independent of whether all or any of us would be better off with less/no socialism. There is an argument to be made about the moral authority of any government to govern at all, and the argument isn't trivial.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Here is my simple explantion between the two.

Capitalist: Thinks they can make money by trying hard, working their ass off, and screwing the people in the middle and lower classes. In essence making money off the people below them.

Socialist: Thinks they can make it big by stealing from the capitalist. In essence they empower the state to attempt and bring their utopia to the masses. They want the state to do their screwing.

The funny part is the socialist requires the capitalist and the capitalist to an extent requires a socialist. Together they can do some decent things together but if one eliminated the other the balance is broken and chaos can ensue.

 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I'm not sure, I would say someone like Dissipate's position is independent of whether all or any of us would be better off with less/no socialism. There is an argument to be made about the moral authority of any government to govern at all, and the argument isn't trivial.
Dissipate's argument is heavily dependent on optimism in the general population; look at his stance on these issues:


Welfare: (how do you plan to attend to terminally ill, handicapped, sick people in this new world, they surely will not be able to provide for themselves, and nobody would insure them) Communities would take care of them, just like they did hundreds of years ago, before the government got involved and began the process of destroying communities.

Regualtions: (Who would be responsible for setting Safety and Environmental standards?...more importantly regulate/inspect) Under anarcho-capitalism with every piece of land privately owned there would be no need to regulate the environment. People do not go around destroying what they own, in fact, they would have every incentive to increase their land value. It is just like I do not see people in my neighborhood polluting and destroying the environment, I actually see them planting trees, and plants.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,096
5,639
126
Capitalists and Socialist are both wrong, but each get a few things right. When confronted with a problem, use the best solution, whether it be "Capitalist" or Socialist" shouldn't matter, as long as it solves the problem.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Capitalists and Socialist are both wrong, but each get a few things right. When confronted with a problem, use the best solution, whether it be "Capitalist" or Socialist" shouldn't matter, as long as it solves the problem.
I didn't say one was right or wrong, and I specifically pointed out the lack of partisanship in the argument.

Merely pointing out the perception of human beings as a race determines political views.

Blind faith and ignoring our flaws is likely wrong, but so is ignoring the good people offer. Obviously pure capitalism and pure communism have some serious issues.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
There are very few real socialist, especially in the US. It's more about the flavor and level of government regulation/intervention in capitalism.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,396
6,075
126
Stunt: I've been discussing politics more recently with my more socialist oriented acquaintances about a broad range of issues; healthcare, taxation, welfare, foreign policy, military, etc etc.

Through this, I have more or less percieved the idea that government in effect saves us from ourselves. All government does is restrict, either in the form of justice, environmental, social, economic, fiscal and the like; forcing limitations on our lives in hopes of forming the greater good unknown by the general population.

M: Don't you think that government is a way for intellectuals to take the pie from people who are genetically more powerful physically. It's just a way smart wimps take from brutes.


S: Therefore it is my view your socialist and capitalist tendencies all come back to how pessimistic or optimistic you are with regards to the human race. If you believe humans in essence are good people and know the difference between right and wrong, you have no problem giving them more power/freedom in their lives (capitalist). If you think people are in essence greedy, selfish and cannot survive alone; you are more willing to restrict their actions through the governing of their lives.

M: This is all upside down. A capitalist is a pessimist who steals from the commons in the name of private property. Because he is motivated by small self confidence and fear he creates laws that protect his private property from being ravaged by other greedy men like him. He can't trust that others will treat him with dignity and respect because he he won't treat others that way himself. The socialist is the optimist who trusts others to do what comes natural to him, to protect and serve others. The socialists knows he is good and giving. He is not concerned with accumulation because he is rich in the only thing that matters.

S: Please note this point doesn't fit nicely into any political party. Social restrictions run rampant in social conservative issues and the same for fiscal liberal issues where economic/fiscal restrictions run rampant.

M: Capitalism runs on greed and ambition. Greed and ambition arise out of inner need. Need is the result of desire. Desire arises with lack. The capitalist must maintain his ambition by a feeling of constant lack. The lack that keeps him running is a lack of satisfaction. Therefore the capitalist will hate personal pleasure and having fun. If he relaxed and felt enjoyment he would quit the treadmill. That is why the capitalist hates hippies and socialists. They are not driven by an empty inner life.

S: Various perceptions of the human race as a whole will in the end determine your political outlook; that's what I have noticed at least.[/quote]

What I have notices is that everything is driven by self hate.

 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Originally posted by: Stunt
I've been discussing politics more recently with my more socialist oriented acquaintances about a broad range of issues; healthcare, taxation, welfare, foreign policy, military, etc etc.

Through this, I have more or less percieved the idea that government in effect saves us from ourselves. All government does is restrict, either in the form of justice, environmental, social, economic, fiscal and the like; forcing limitations on our lives in hopes of forming the greater good unknown by the general population.

Therefore it is my view your socialist and capitalist tendencies all come back to how pessimistic or optimistic you are with regards to the human race. If you believe humans in essence are good people and know the difference between right and wrong, you have no problem giving them more power/freedom in their lives (capitalist). If you think people are in essence greedy, selfish and cannot survive alone; you are more willing to restrict their actions through the governing of their lives.

Please note this point doesn't fit nicely into any political party. Social restrictions run rampant in social conservative issues and the same for fiscal liberal issues where economic/fiscal restrictions run rampant.

Various perceptions of the human race as a whole will in the end determine your political outlook; that's what I have noticed at least.

Stunt, I think you are going in the right direction and expanding upon your understanding of how political ideology is intimately entwined with a multitude of other psychological and philosophical factors.

Although most people will never delve deep enough to discover it, their explicit assumptions and conclusions are derived from a metaphysical foundation, and without the proper introspection of these matters, their sum beliefs reflect an un-analyzed philosophical clusterf*ck of evasions, whims, and random -mostly contradictory- principles and ideas.

In any case, whether the individual is truly conscious of it or not, this metaphysical core is the foundation of how they interpret Man and Existence. This is what I believe you are identifying in the OP. Many people will view Man and Existence one way, and others completely differently. This will lead to a great divergence in the everyday concretes that we believe and discuss.

There are whole books that touch on your observation. I happen to mostly agree... that basically speaking, the majority of the people who have a strong faith in Man and his natural capacity for good tend to have a more "limited government" type of attitude, and vice versa: Those with a more pessimistic view of Man and Existence tend to support a larger, more active governmental structure.

Although it's a dying concept, philosophy is still THE thing that helps to explain man and the universe. And since economics, politics, culture, and virtually everything else is derived from these explanations, I think it's a good idea for thinking people to take a close look at the philosophical base of their everyday beliefs. Like I said, I think the OP is a small admission of the underlying philosophical factors that influence people's more overt thinking. Good job.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I'm not sure, I would say someone like Dissipate's position is independent of whether all or any of us would be better off with less/no socialism. There is an argument to be made about the moral authority of any government to govern at all, and the argument isn't trivial.
Dissipate's argument is heavily dependent on optimism in the general population; look at his stance on these issues:


Welfare: (how do you plan to attend to terminally ill, handicapped, sick people in this new world, they surely will not be able to provide for themselves, and nobody would insure them) Communities would take care of them, just like they did hundreds of years ago, before the government got involved and began the process of destroying communities.

Regualtions: (Who would be responsible for setting Safety and Environmental standards?...more importantly regulate/inspect) Under anarcho-capitalism with every piece of land privately owned there would be no need to regulate the environment. People do not go around destroying what they own, in fact, they would have every incentive to increase their land value. It is just like I do not see people in my neighborhood polluting and destroying the environment, I actually see them planting trees, and plants.

These are the promises, on occasion, Dissipate grants that all these things may be mistaken (the second part is particularly comical; under freedom, if land generates more profit by destroying it, people destroy it; always have, always will).

He falls back on an ethical argument which as I said is not trivial, though it does presume things like private property rights, cor which I see no evidence in nature.
 

zephyrprime

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,512
2
81
If people aren't greedy, how can capitalism even work? Capitalism requires greed. Imagine if companies weren't greedy and didn't care about profits; they'd go out of business or be like useless communist companies that hang around but are super inefficient.