Capitalism vs Collectivism- whats the real debate?

Weak in some ways strong in others.

Flexibility = survivability perhaps.

Capitalism protects the weak and yet it is the dominant method of economic co-operation. The Darwinian front runner.
In capitalism, the elderly invest their resources/savings in the young. Who in turn provide for the elderly with a share of their increased production.

So weak in body, strong in experience. + weak in experience, strong in body.
It's complimentry.

Weak in resources plus strong in resources is a good combination for mutual gain.
Nietschian society hasn't prospered historically. Darwins law got them.

Perhaps you can take it too far, but I can't think of a historical example of this off the top of my head. Caring is good. One day you will be weak too. Encourage caring in others, you will need them later.

 

too much libcommie welfare created Chi-Raq. Time to reverse course, obviously.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the meaning of your words.

Allow me to give example of my own thinking.
From my perspective, had my parents not cared for me as a child I would not have been able or willing to care for them in their dotage.
They would hence have been dependent on state provision to care for them.

Had "the angels" in my life not protected me from times of poverty, sadness or sickness, I would have been unable to do the same for them in return.
As self reliant as I am, going blind for instance would have finished me if left uncared for. But I was cared for and went on to return the favour to those who did so, extending their own lifespans significantly.

I don't use the welfare state, never have and never will. I have strong morality issues with acts of coercion.
Instead I take my society from friends and family. But social animal I am. A hairless monkey through and through.
Darwinian evolution encourages us to care for each other. Just as it does many other successful lifeforms.

 

East Germany was state capitalist. Communism was never achieved. You should be referring to the economic spectrum and optimal government interventionism (of course that will also make your position look childlike)

 

exactly, libcommieism is never achieved but libcommies want to keep adding more govt despite 150 million who slowly starving to death. Tell us, is Venezuela a special kind of libcommieism or just one of 100 examples of libcommie govt intervention failing? Is it exacty what our Founders warned us against?

 

I thought Darwin was about survival of the fittest? So are you a libcommie?

 

Socialism is the gateway drug to Communism. Neither has ever worked as you said because they do not take in account the natural desires for individual liberty that are intense for most.

 

I'm with you!

 

and liberalism is gateway drug to socialism:

Norman Thomas ( socialist presidential candidate)
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

 

Did I say either or both have worked? Am I misunderstanding you?

 

Did the above lack clarity?
Humans are a single species NOT a single society.
Our government was founded on the principle of individual sovereignty, no one person or group of persons being anointed, appointed, or elected to rule over all others; our government was formed to protect the right of each individual to self govern their own lives, making choices, good or bad, and dealing with the consequences, good or bad, within the laws each society found necessary and acceptable, allowing much difference between how each local society would govern themselves without imposition upon other adjacent societies, both near and far. The State governments responsibility was to maintain order within their borders over each of the local societies in resolving differences, while the Federal governments responsibility was primarily the protection of all the States from invasion by external sources, or internal should the need arise.
Perhaps another way to view the 'real debate' might be between "Freedom vs Force".

 

Good finish!

 

The one true thing you said in your quote of yourself was "opinion".

The issue is the private ownership of business of capitalism, vs. the worker control of socialism. These are two economic systems. The Constitution didn't establish any economic system.

And BTW, see the bold words in the quote? Socialism is no different.

 

Workers may work hard .....but greater rewards go to the "risk takers".

 

Rutgers studied worker-owned co-ops extensively and they found that employee ownership boosted company productivity by an average of 4%, while profits went up 14% !!!

https://vtdigger.org/2017/05/17/senators-look-take-vermont-worker-owner-effort-nationwide/

 

I employed the word 'opinion' in reference to what this thread suggests we are debating.
There is nothing stopping competition between "private owned" and "worker controlled" businesses. As I see it, the economic 'system' would remain basically the same, both would produce goods and services which consumers would acquire with money.
True, the Constitution did not establish an economic 'system', but our government does require all debts paid to the government be made with the dollars it produces, and NOT with livestock, crops, or any other form of value which one must first exchange for dollars to pay any debts assessed by government. You cannot own and live on a piece of land if you do not pay taxes on it.

 

Our government was founded on the principle of individual sovereignty
and
formed to protect the right of each individual to self govern their own lives

Socialism is more based upon sovereignty held by a central source to be imposed over a collective body, providing needs and wants sufficient to maintain control over both the providers and 'the lesser and non provider' consumers of each individual society who comprise the total population.

 

There's that opinion again. It's not true. You made it up.

 

I don't see it as an opinion. I see it as a common thread throughout the documents of our countries founding.
"We hold these truth's to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain, unalienable rights...."
That addresses the individual. We are individually unique yet we have equal opportunity under the law. Socialism loathes that uniqueness and desires to force a "herd mentality" upon us as if we were stock in a stockyard.

 

I thought it was obvious that my post referred to the text that I highlighted in bold face print in the quote.
"Socialism is more based upon sovereignty held by a central source to be imposed over a collective body"
THAT is the "opinion".

 

I understand. I see your embolden statement as fact and has no place in our governing body.

 

100% total BS of course. It assumed capitalism since it is was the system in place, it appeared to be 100% natural and consistent with human nature and freedom, and there were no objections whatsoever. In fact, Constitutional convention was convened primarily to enhance free trade among the states some of which were beginning to restrict or regulate trade in an attempt to gain capitalist advantage for themselves.
OMG! Welcome to your first lesson in American History. Do you really want to be a liberal all your life?

 

Yes, I agree!

 

Caring people are the fittest.
It's a survival trait.

If you don't have it, you are weak.

 

What have I made up?