Do you believe capitalism is the path to success and socialism to poverty?(LA needs more capitalism)

[Queue]

I believe an extreme on both side is bad. You have far-right winged countries, almost lawless ones with almost no taxes, with loads of poverty and poor infrastructure.

What I believe is just as long as a country gets rid of corruption, nepotism, and corporatism (or socialism for corporations) then yes, I believe capitalism is a path to a more successful society while socialism will do the opposite. Socialism may work for a generation, but it will degenerate a society and the future of that population.

[Roy]

Truth is always in the middle. We need a reasonable hybrid, for example, cooperativeism (what Stalin built).
In simple terms, capitalism is quite easy to make socially oriented. 1) a ban on the privatization of large and strategic means of production (banks, medicine, defense, large factories, etc.). 2) a progressive scale of taxation (the richer you are, the more taxes - this prevents the formation of monopolies).

Some random question sprung to my mind ... is bureaucracy a problem in Russia according to you?

[michal3141]

All 'isms' are evil. Both pure socialism and pure capitalism are paths to disaster. I believe in meritocracy. And proper meritocratic governments would balance elements of capitalism and socialism.

[Kamui]

El capitalismo no es una garantia al desarrollo pero es el "menos peorsh". Tristemente las organizaciones supranacionales a la que estan adjuntos un buen tramo de paises de latinoamerica les exigen Estados del Bienestar y demas excusas para esclavisarlos por medio deudas externas a la Banca Internacional por lo que es muy dificil ponerlo en practica en su forma mas pura sumado a que la idiosincracia de cada pueblo dista de la de occidente en mayor o menor medida(y como sabran Occidente es el bastion del capitalismo). Aunque es mejor. La gente ofrece sus servicios, gana dinero y con su tiempo libre pueden hacer un negocio. No hay que saber de economia, yo he hecho alfajores express y aparte de cubrir la inversion tengo dos ahorros. Uno para multiplicar la producccion y otro que es la ganancia.

El socialismo suena lindo en papel, pero como juridicamente se les da mas poder a una minoria esta podria ser corrupta y terminarian por hacer bastantes cosas malas. Nicaragua, Cuba, Argentina y Venezuela son buenos ejemplos. A los academicos de estos tiempos les ensenan que el socialismo esta bien por que lo demuestran como "humanismo". Es una subversion ideologica.

[Daos777]

Both will fail because of overpopulation eroding resources too damn quickly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KirillMazur]

Ok, but that is not a very success friendly view.

The younger generation of economists (and ordinary people) cannot think outside the neoliberal economic model - they were taught to think this way by removing all other economic theories from the mainstream. All according to the precepts of Friedman and the Chicago boys
Global system of free movement of capital based on the principle of client-servercolony-metropolis, in which the colony countries are deprived of sovereignty and take the place of a low-paid and low-skilled worker or donor of resources for the western "overlord". Guess Brazil's place in the global division of labor. If this model is preserved, the "developing countries" will never leave this status - no one is interested in their development.
There is only one solution to the problem - the end of a virtual speculative economy based on inflating bubbles and endless emission of unbacked green candy wrappers. Return to the gold standard. Everyone must live on their honestly earned money. Along the way, this will put an end to crises, most wars, as well as the depletion of natural resources (due to the endless need for the growth of a speculative economy and overproduction).
Liberal-financial "effective" fascists in the 20th century have damaged the planet and civilization already much more than the hot wars. Including due to the practice of reducing costs in general for everything that is possible.

Also, this way of thinking sound just like an excuse to deffend the confort of parasite at the expense of smashing the possibilty of potential competencies to grow economically and outcompete the existing unproductive and non-innovating ones.

The main parasite is the American (but not the American's people!) financial system, stretched over the whole world in the interests of a narrow group of people.

certainly it is better for both sides, to pay workers for their work, for example building river canals, rather that catch some innocent people to the nets and send them to the work without pay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Canal

Again the same mantras. In Russia, there have long been no gulags, and in your beloved America, private prisons using free or almost free prisoners' labor grow like mushrooms after rain. Or is it "different"?
By the way, how are you personally useful for capitalism?

[luc2112]

With a free market monopoly, capital seeks to those countries where lower costs. The concept of national capital and protectionism is alien to the free market. Why were white countries de-industrialized and production transferred to Asia? Because of the costs.
Under state control over strategic and large sectors, the privatization of these sectors (and, accordingly, the cross-border movement of capital) is prohibited, and money remains inside the country.
A free market should not go beyond the small and (maybe) medium market.

The problem is the competition of one country with another. The country will not be able to export manufactured if labor is expensive.

[luc2112]

Global system of free movement of capital based on the principle of client-servercolony-metropolis, in which the colony countries are deprived of sovereignty and take the place of a low-paid and low-skilled worker or donor of resources for the western "overlord". Guess Brazil's place in the global division of labor. If this model is preserved, the "developing countries" will never leave this status - no one is interested in their development.

We are not on the list of cheap labor, the biggest threat here is China. Brazil would be an agricultural supplier and little manufacturing industry would disappear.

[KirillMazur]

Some random question sprung to my mind ... is bureaucracy a problem in Russia according to you?

I think excessive bureaucracy is a problem everywhere. It slows down the speed of the state’s response to problems, reduces the system’s controllability, steals part of the allocated money, and in general it costs too much to maintain an excess of these intermediaries.
The other extreme is the digital state. There are minimum intermediaries, but a huge number of people are no longer needed. Plus, it’s not always clear who owns these technologies and where your data goes. The officials are still somehow chosen by the people, and the technology owner is not controlled by the people in any way.

[Joso]

The main parasite is the American (but not the American's people!) financial system, stretched over the whole world in the interests of a narrow group of people.

Well, American is not a synonim of capitalism.
USA is far from being capitalist since many times ago.
More trully capitalist places are like Hong Kong, despite it being indirectly a in China's domain.