Mar
17
Capitalism vs. Socialism In Two Sentences
By Capitalist in Chief“Capitalism has great benefits but shortcomings too. Socialism eliminates the benefits, and does not solve its shortcomings.” – Capitalist in Chief, SocialismDoesntWork.com
Yes, it’s me, I said it. I see quite a number of Google searches in my logs on “who said capitalism has great benefits but shortcomings too. socialism eliminates the benefits, and does not solve its shortcomings.” So yes, it’s a SocialismDoesntWork.com original. Feel free to link here. :-)
Categories : Why Socialism Doesn't Work
Tags :
Tiny alternate link for this article:
http://tinyurl.com/yfwzc2r
5 Comments
March 25th, 2010 at 12:38 am
Capitalism is working great! Just look at all the jobs, homeownership, quality healthcare and…wait a second (huh? Highest unemployment in decades, same with foreclosure rates. Oh Shit)…sorry, nevermind.
If capitalism were just capitalism that would be one thing. Unfortunately, most of the working people in this country have less rights under the law than a nonliving entity – the corporation – and since those nonliving entities own Washington D.C. we have very little chance at ever getting those rights back without radical changes to our system. At least a capitalist/socialist hybrid, that allows private enterprise and private ownership but checks the power of corporate interest ensures education, healthcare and equal rights under the law for everyone – not just the elitist pigs that can afford it.
March 25th, 2010 at 12:51 am
What you’re complaining about here is not capitalism, it’s the capitalist/socialist hybrid you seem to love. Government in the U.S. controls 50% of mortgages, and dictates who should be given a loan. Government pays for 50% of health care and regulates the rest. Capitalism at fault? I don’t think so. Joblessness, foreclosures, high health care costs, are all due to government meddling with the private sector.
You want to give politicians more power and control over the citizens’ lives by letting them ensure everything, yet you expect them to cater to special interests less? That won’t work.
Yes, give the government more power and see the “elitist pigs” use it to their benefit even more.
Total socialist health care will give crap care to all, while only the “elitist pigs” can afford anything better. Hooray for socialist equality!
March 25th, 2010 at 1:15 am
You’re right! TOTAL socialist healthcare might not be the answer. Who knows – it might be a pathetic, embarrassing failure just like capitalist healthcare (i.e. completely unregulated, corporatized and free to do the only thing corporations are ALLOWED to do: pursue greater and greater profits.)
Maybe the best thing that ever happened to those “elitist pigs” (and, by the way, I was using that term as a wink because of all the extremist redbaiting) is that working class people – the vast majority of the country – continue to wage this outdated ideological war with each other (liberals seeing the GOP rank-and-file as gun nuts and fascists, conservatives viewing liberals as wild-eyed Bolsheviks ready to nationalize the potato chips in their cupboards) while they get rich in the gap between us. Hence my opinion that a system that curtails corporate greed, shores up some of the inequities between the classes but MAINTAINS private and individual freedom might be a compromise that could allow us all to acknowledge we live in one country, not two, despite our cultural or philosophical differences. Of course extremists on both sides will continue to Satanize that idea of compromise, working people will keep busting our asses while our property values plummet and China gobbles up more of the planet’s resources, and the companies that own DC will continue raking in the profits until the bottom REALLY falls out.
March 25th, 2010 at 1:20 am
Oh and by the way…Obama – Harvard graduate. Bush – Yale graduate. One’s no Che Guevara and the other’s no ranch hand. They’re both just good actors.
March 25th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
I know not of which capitalist health care you speak of because “completely unregulated, corporatized and free to do the only thing corporations are ALLOWED to do: pursue greater and greater profits” is not what the U.S. has had for many, many years.
It’s not a compromise at all. This is precisely what most conservatives want, yet liberals reject. We already have quite a lot of government intervention to “shores up some of the inequities between the classes.” We can stand to have less. Not that equality is bad, it’s just that the socialist means to achieve it are quite defective. And we already have quite a lot of regulation to “curtails corporate greed.” Perhaps we can stand to have somewhat different regulations, but the problem is to come up with ones that work well.
This cannot be helped. Property values were a bubble and won’t go up to their former levels again, unless it’s another economy busting bubble we want.