Why does everyone dislike capitalism so much in favor of socialism?

Indeed laissez faire capitalism isn't perfect so some government should get involved, but that's not what I asked, I asked why if communism/socialism fails or doesn't distinctly win ideally or practically why do people still believe in it?

Ayn Rand: That's right. I'm opposed to all forms of control. I am for an absolute laissez-faire, free, unregulated economy. Let me put it briefly. I'm for the separation of state and economics. Just as we had separation of state and church, which led to peaceful co-existence among different religions, after a period of religious wars, so the same applies to economics. If you separate the government from economics, if you do not regulate production and trade, you will have peaceful cooperation, and harmony, and justice among men.

Memes...
People dont like capitalism because memes like the poster above... its that simple.
>solidarity
>compassion
Thats what people believe in when it comes to socialism. In Sweden people pay 50-60%tax because of memes, they believe they get good public schools and hospitals(which is 20% of total tax costs of the state), and other memes like "help dem poor" which is also total BS, because the taxes makes it hard for people to help themselves through employment etc.
All swedes believe in memes and "state propoganda", they think that paying half your salary is worth it, but they dont know that 55% of state costs are direct handouts(inc pensions).
People could pay 25%tax(companies, citizens etc,) and still get access to public schools and hospitals.

You miss my point. There is no "capitalism" vs "socialism" vs "communism". Those are just shorthand for "what should governments do?"

There's no real conversation to have anyway. This board and all boards are just full of retards.

>if you do not regulate production and trade, you will have peaceful cooperation, and harmony, and justice among men.

Mike Wallace: Let me put one specific case to you. Suppose under your system of self-sufficiency, one single corporation were to get a stranglehold on a vital product, or a raw material, uranium for instance, which might be vital to the national defense, and then would refuse to sell it to the government. Then what?

Ayn Rand: Under a free system no one could acquire a monopoly on anything. If you look at economics, and economic history, you will discover that all monopolies have been established with government help, with the help of franchises, subsidies, or any kind of government privileges. In free competition no one could corner the market on a needed product. History will support me.

Mike Wallace: There is a deposit of uranium in Nevada, it's the only one in the United States, and it's our only access to that, and for self-defense we need this. Whereas, let's say in the Soviet Union, the state is able to command that. And if kind of a strange man, of strange beliefs, got a hold of this uranium, and said, "I will not sell this uranium to my government." He should not be able to be forced by the government (according to your philosophy) to sell that uranium?

Ayn Rand: But you realize that you are setting up an impossible fantasy. That is, if you are talking of any natural resource, that is vitally needed, it could not become vitally needed if it were that scarce. Not scarce to the point where one man could control all of it. So long as (I'm using your example) if a natural resource exists in more than one place in the world, no one man is going to control it.

The communism worked perfectly in the industrial development of underdevelopment countries.

This process was an imperative planification more military than economical or social way, but it worked, at least for industrializing underdevelopment countries (I repeat). For example, when Stalin acceded to the total power in Russia, it were a country of farmers. The industrial plannings became Rusia in a industrial country in a record time. So they won nazis.

Communism didn´t work as well as capitalism for developed countries, like eastern germany showed.

Anyway communism sustitute capitalism´s bourgeoisie for the dictatorial nomenklatura. In Capitalism a lot of people is totally poor and in communism they live inside a dictatorship.

There is somewhat, capitalists and communists have different missions in the world. Capitalists want to create rich markets and powerful economies in their countries and cities. Communists want to create equality throughout the world under a huge mega banner and through collectivism have utopia.

Those are pretty different goals, just as capitalism and communism are in fact quite different. While it is what the government does in the economy, capitalism and communism also affect the worldviews of its citizens.

>what about this well known problem with capitalism?
>No TRUE Capitalism has been tried, and THAT surely wouldn't have the problems you're worried about.

Boy where have I seen this argument

...

>The Gilded Age was an era of rapid economic growth, especially in the North and West. As American wages were much higher than those in Europe, especially for skilled workers, the period saw an influx of millions of European immigrants. The rapid expansion of industrialization led to real wage growth of 60% between 1860 and 1890, spread across the ever-increasing labor force. The average annual wage per industrial worker (including men, women and children) rose from $380 in 1880 to $564 in 1890, a gain of 48%. However, the Gilded Age was also an era of abject poverty and inequality as millions of immigrants—many from impoverished European nations—poured into the United States, and the high concentration of wealth became more visible and contentious.[1]

>Capitalists want to create rich markets and powerful economies in their countries and cities. Communists want to create equality throughout the world under a huge mega banner and through collectivism have utopia.

This is pants on head retarded. You don't think capitalists imagine their system works well to collectively create wealth for everyone and will eventually create the most utopic society? You don't think communists want strong cities and economies, but just want to, what, LARP as farmers?

You're just projecting your fantasies.

What does that have to do with monopolies? Did you quote the wrong post?

"If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action."

Planning for Freedom (1952), p. 44

What do we understand under the word socialism? If Marxian socialism about working class killing capitalists and seizing factories and shit, that's obviously horseshit, but Staatssozialismus like Bisnarck's Germany is proven to work.

>a system that destroyed traditional gender roles, gave wimmin the vote, promoted cuckoldry and free love, fucked traditional family structures
>patriarchal

>you now have to go to car dealership with a mechanic to make sure the car they sell you is in fact not gonna break down in 3 hrs
>poor people are now allowed to take 10% a month mortgage because they cant calculate themselves just how much they are getting screwed over
i am a fucking libertarian and this black and white thinking pisses me off.

That would be liberalism. Capitalism is the economic aspect of liberalism but could exist in non-liberal societies.

Communism, as in the legit theory by Marx, is the natural end state of Capitalism. One isn't an alternative to the other. According to Marx? Capitalism will eventually lead to Socialism will eventually lead to Communism.

It's merely a prediction. One that can either be correct or incorrect and only time will tell.

At the moment US is facing a lot of the problems Marx believed would occur towards the later periods of a capitalist economy. Globalization, automation, centeralization of market power, etc. What remains to be seen is if the West will turn to socialism to alleviate these problems or if something else will occur.

Because most socialist retards cannot differentiate between capitalism, bureaucracy and their different implications in government.
/thread

Because people don't know what capitalism is, nor do they know what socialism is, otherwise they wouldn't be against capitalism and for socialism.

Boom.

>So long as (I'm using your example) if a natural resource exists in more than one place in the world, no one man is going to control it.

So are we just going to ignore the fact that there were points in history where a single man, or a very small group of men, succeeded in controlling a vital resource? It's not impossible at all.

>live in system designed to benefit few at the expense of many
>wonder why philosophy that appeals to this gigantic mass of the population would be popular

really made me think

>government spending on social programs is bad
>now if you excuse me I have to go collect my social security checks after dropping off my kids at a public school

Because when corporate profiting becomes to powerful it creates a circumstance of have and have nots and when many people feel it's reached a critical point they feel like eating the rich alive in hopes that something better and fairer can be established.
A better topic that should be discussed is how to deal with the flaws of the current systems in place.
In socialism/communism you are persecuted when you are a risk to the regime.
In a capitalist democracy you are prosecuted when it's profitable.
I

Well, the conservative argument would be that many social programs are wasteful or ineffective. So it basically comes down to: "I support the government programs that directly benefit me, and would rather eliminate the ones that don't."

That many social programs are wasteful and ineffective is a fact. They'd rather see the market sort it out rather than the government fucking everything up. Education is a good example, government run schools are terrible compared to private schools.

>government run schools are terrible compared to private schools

If you could show me a privatization experiment in education that worked, I'd appreciate it.

Look at any private school really.

So poor people shouldn't be allowed to get any education?

Is that supposed to be an argument? Plenty of poor people have been able to get an education in private schools.

Okay so what if you dont have enough money for a private school?

Government run schools pump out most of the professionals in the developed world. Many public schools in lower income and working class areas function worse and don't improve due to the capitalistic tendency of school administrators in having a vested interest and allocating funds to certain areas in order to maintain performance and test scores in certain places and thereby justifying their continued employment.

Yes, that "capitalistic tendency" is called a public sector union.

Then you should get a job or get into school on your merits. Why should someone else have to pay for you?

[citation needed]

What if you have a job but you still don't have enough to pay for private school?

What if you're six years old and don't have a job because you can't get one because you're six years old?

Then save more or get another job that pays more. If you are six years old you have parents.

I've gone to both private and public.

The private schools sucked ass.

Good for you.

>asked for empirical evidence
>suggest anecdotal evidence
>provided anecdotal evidence
>make passive aggressive remarks

Sad!

Nah, they cannot really be set apart. Once you base your society on meritocratic faggotry, radical individualism and profit, you're gonna end up like that.

I don't see how that changes anything. Sorry your school sucked?

Okay, prove to me that a privatized school system can teach future workers to the same degree of readiness than a public one.

Because I'm aware of a lot of experiments with privatization, and it usually seems to produce mediocre results.

Yet private schools perform better than public schools, have much higher number of applicants than public ones.

The proof you seek is reality.

Yeah a lot of "teachers" clamor for more funding which never reaches the students but is used to line their own pockets.
There's also an issue with instituted segregation with schools being built on a neighborhood and income basis.
If such a structure where dismantled and children of families with mixed levels of income attended the same schools more, then the level of performance for the lowest performing group would increase but it would also decrease for the highest performing group. For a long time now it seems they've been interested in maintain high performance where it's easier and siphoning what's left to the least performing areas.

>Why does everyone dislike capitalism so much in favor of socialism?
I think many favor socialism over capitalism morally
so I think they look at capitalism in the same way that most people in the west look at nazism
it's something bad enough for many of them to want to revolt against

>schools take in better students
>get better academic results

Okay, the question is what system society should use to educate children and get the best educated, most qualified workforce.

Could you show me an example where an entire school system has been privatized and it has produced good results.

Apparently whoever taught you did a shitty job, because every time somebody has asked you to defend your position or supply evidence you've responded with non-answers.

Yeah we need more ignorant street children that will grow up to be just like their parents than we do already and since there are no more sweatshops or child labor allowed that means more funding for gibs me dat will come out of you edgy conservacucks' wallets.

No, obviously I can't since there is no such thing as an entire school system being private. What I can point you to are the abysmal public school results vis a vis private school, in pretty much all areas, be it food, education or teachers.

No, what we need is another few billions in unpaid student debt and a bunch of liberal arts and gender studies degrees, that ought to be good for us.

>What I can point you to are the abysmal public school results vis a vis private school

If you could show me that too, I'd be appreciative.

You see, it's often customary to provide evidence when you make a claim.

I've been wondering about this shit for a while.

As I understand it, private schools mostly produce better performance purely because they have the ability to select better pupils to begin with, and with the same quality of students, they produce the same results as public schools.

nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2006461.pdf

hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG06-02-PetersonLlaudet.pdf

Tee bee aytch, I'd rather have the US education system (free, universal education) than the Indian education system (free universal education was only implemented less than ten years ago).

Student loans only happen when your country isn't a shithole to begin with.

Only until you realize it doesn't work to have billions of dollars in debt that will never be paid back.

>US has been largest economy on planet since mid 1870s
>US has had universal primary education since the Jefferson administration

I'm not seeing the problem, tee bee aytch

Never did I expect you to see the obvious problem of having other people pay for your shit.

>average standard of living among the highest in the world
>median income among highest in the world
>the only people who are higher in either of these categories are to the left of the US
>investment in education and healthcare produces a healthy, skilled workforce that makes the entire country richer

Tee bee aytch, I think fiscal conservatives would rather live in a poor shithole just so they could have somebody nearby to feel better than.

Mans natural instinct will almost always lead to some form of monarchist/aristocratic system, where one or a few families will have all the power of the territory x... Systems with differing ideals will get corrupted into the monarchist model eventually... in capitalism, we see the richest families becoming the controllers...in communism we see militaristic leaders as god-kings that will either transform into family lineage kings, or into military circle lineage god-kings (military 'families'), but will eventually transform into family-blood based power consolidation (china for example)... Blood (family) will always prevail over ideals, so we should conceive systems that utilize and optimize this, instead of working against nature.....-----> only enlightened monarchy will lead us to the stars (optimized by an international balance of power)

Not him, but sexism can always find a place in capitalism as there will always be someone willing to sell it to you. If there's profit to be made, the idealogy will be peddled.

>Why does everyone dislike capitalism so much in favor of socialism?
Who? What is your source? What were the methods used?

How is paying for pensions a bad thing? You think that swedes don't know that they are paying for decent pensions? Even if some don't, why do you think they would object?

*tips fedora*

There is no true solidarity with anything that can be called working class. Even George Orwell knew that the people who claim to be socialists aren't really socialists, they are simply middle class people who resent the fact that they aren't rich.

...

>Supporting any economic system other than a keynesian mixed economy

>Never did I expect you to see the obvious problem of having other people pay for your shit.

If it generates positive externalities then it is not a problem.

>private schools get more funding from rich parents
>able to get more resources
>students do better
Wow what a susprise!

Socialism and capitalism are just names for natural behavioral tendencies in markets.
Growing markets tend to aproximate capitalist market behaviors. When they inevitably collapse, people switch to socialist behavior patterns as a way to meet their most basic needs.. When socialist patterns of behavior stick around too long, they lead either to reform to include capitalist market behavior or they collapse. We experience the illusion of control over what sort of economies we have but in truth the economy is too chaotic and temporally extended for us to control it. in a nutshel, Marx was right about economic determinism but wrong to see it leading to anything and wrong to see it in stages rather than an endless cycle.

There is also the simple fact that a private school has the ability to kick under-performing kids out of their system in a way that a public school simply cannot.

nope. capitalism is problematical

People don't like being stolen from

Yeah the Soviet Union with the second biggest economy in the world, really shit.

Remember you can reserve the house you rent in the company town if u just vote away the regulations (((:

Because capitalism is destroying the planet, we literally have no choice but to go socialist or face death

>Socialism or communism
>communism/socialism

Stop.

Keynes has literally said that government handouts are pointless and will geometrically lower the value of the monetary unit.

>labor theory of value
Can someone explain this to me? It just doesn't sound like it follows

>Trade unions haven't been the key proponents of communism in the US

>George Orwell wasn't a socialist and definitely didn't fight against fascists in a socialist brigade

What the fuck are you smoking, fuck off

Basically value is determined by how much labor is put a commodity among other factors.

You want someone to explain the labor theory of value to you in a Veeky Forums post?

Can you fucking READ A BOOK. NIGGER.

>Create a standardized wage for 1 hour of work.
That's extremely simplified, but Marx never filled any of the obvious holes in his theory, never went deeper than this. Never explained how different industries have different value to society, never explained how we would stop people from slacking because of the standardized pay. Didn't discuss skilled labor, how we would allocate resources. Just said we should base income on a standardized, time based unit of production.

Marx's economics aren't talked about for a reason, the man's more of a religious prophet than anything

Marx's critique of capitalism is the real thing of value in his work. His solutions were extreme and utopian.

I'm not an economist so I'll probably fail, but this is how I understand the marxist version:

A commodity has use value (this hammer is good for hammering) and exchange value (price). These are distinct and unrelated; useless things can cost a lot. What determines the exchange value of a commodity? Why can I trade the hammer for another commodity of equal exchange value (let's say a saw)? Marx thinks that for two commodities to have the same exchange value, there must be something external determining this type of value (since it -cannot- be use value). For Marx, this external factor that both commodities have in common is the amount of labour put into it.

Before capitalism, people traded commodities in peace and harmony. Worker A put 4 hours into making the hammer, worker B put 4 hours into making the saw. They exchanged it, fair n square. Wealth/cash remained constant.

Capitalism comes along. It does not involve only exchange of commodities, but the generation wealth/money. This money can be used to buy more commodities, combine them with other commodities that are worth more, and make a profit. ie: buy saw, bolts and engine, combine into a chainsaw, sell it for more than the individual parts are worth. So the wheel starts to spin, and it's been spinning for 200 years.

So, HOW does capitalism generate profit, why is the chainsaw worth more than the sum of it’s parts?

1/2

Marx says the under capitalism the means of production (system of how commodities are produced excluding labour) are set up in a way where workers produce more value than they get in return (unlike they did with the saw-hammer exchange). So the capitalist sets up a chainsaw factory, buys all the parts. He buys 1 day of labour form a worker. The exchange value of the worker is determined by the labour necessary to produce the worker, to keep him alive for 1 day (food, bed). It takes about 4 hours of labour to produce this. So for the first 4 hours of the workday, the worker doesn’t add any wealth to the system. The factory owner pays the worker what he’s worth (his exchange value = cash equal to 4 hours of labour to keep him alive. But he is a smart motherfucker because the worker has to stay at the factory for another 4 hours. For the rest of the day, the worker produces surplus value. The capitalist factory owner takes the 4 hours of surplus value generated by the worker for himself, buys more stuff, more workers, generating more profit ad infinitum.

tl;dr: Labour is the only thing that produces more value than it is worth, and how capitalism generates profit = labour theory of value. Capitalism generates profit through the exploitation of workers. Profit is the result of the extra 4 hours of labour produced beyond what is needed to the workers wage.

The theory doesn't work. But he pointed out a conflict of interest that was pretty fucking spot on: workers want more wages and better conditions, while the capitalist want more profit.

PS: Marx didn't hate capitalism.

This

I hate this dichotomy, desu.

Certain aspects of capitalism sickens me. I think that no child should ever have its prospects in life determined by the wealth level of its parents, and I also think that it is disgusting how much money flow into worthless people, who contribute nothing, through finance, speculation (particularly in housing), marketing, etc., while teachers, nurses and factory workers have to claw their way to every dime they earn.

In other words, I don't believe that the invisible hand can guide wealth in a way that is in any way fair and just. Does that make me a Marxist?

Well, on the other hand, all experience I have earned and everything I have read indicates that governments are wildly inefficient in handling money, politicians are easily corruptible, handouts make people lazy and taxation reduces incentive to be a productive member of society.

So I don't believe government can ever be solution. Does that make me a capitalist?

Seriously, where the fuck do I go?

> memes

Those memes generate countries that are perfectly competitive compared to America, in practically every way.

Not only that, but their citizens are undoubtedly healthier, happier and more educated.

I think its fair to say there are varying shades of capitalism and socialism.

Some work better than others.

Simply saying all you have is black and white all capitalism is the same is disingenuous.

Some versions works ok, some work better, and some are shit.

Honestly, the US has issues with its capitalism. Its selling the rope that will be later used to hang itself for the all mighty dollar (namely automation and China).

Though as much as we argue about it, capitalism will go away in the next 100 years as we know it.

Maybe another brand of capitalism, but with automation and ai, it won't be the same.

You're doing exactly what you should do. Struggle in the middle, doubt your convictions, don't get addicted to the heroin that is ideology, reject reductive oppositions, don't punch nazis, be rational but don't rationalise stupidity, listen to the other side. Do whatever the fuck you can to undermine political polarisation.

Marx loved capitalism for crushing feudalism but hated it for exploiting and alienating workers. If only more people managed to hold two thoughts in their head at the same time.