Difference between revisions of "Capitalism vs. socialism/woozle"
(Created page with "''This analysis by Woozle involves {{l/user|Woozle}}'s definitions of capitalism and socialism.'' ==About== Some self-identified supporters of capitalism (however...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''This analysis by Woozle involves {{l/user|Woozle}}'s definitions of [[capitalism]] and [[socialism]].'' | ''This analysis by Woozle involves {{l/user|Woozle}}'s definitions of [[capitalism]] and [[socialism]].'' | ||
==About== | ==About== | ||
| − | Some self-identified supporters of [[capitalism]] (however they may define it) argue that it is the economic system which best serves the goals of [[socialism/woozle| | + | There are differing views on whether [[capitalism]] (in general) is at odds with [[socialism/woozle|woozle socialism]]. |
| + | ===Conflict: No=== | ||
| + | Some self-identified supporters of [[capitalism]] (however they may define it) argue that it is the economic system which best serves the goals of [[socialism/woozle|woozle socialism]]. This may be true for some definitions of capitalism (e.g. those which allow for strong regulation and [[social safety-net]]s), though it is definitely not true for all. | ||
| + | ===Conflict: Yes=== | ||
| + | Other capitalism-supporters argue that [[there is no such thing as society]] and that market forces are in fact the very definition of [[fairness]], therefore the poor deserve poverty and the rich deserve wealth (the [[fair world fallacy]]), and often go on to conclude that socialism is therefore [[evil]]. | ||
| − | + | Given the flat contradiction between this and [[socialism/woozle|woozle socialism]] – which recognizes that no economic system is perfectly fair, and therefore society must sometimes intervene to restore a modicum of balance and fairness – it does seem logical to say that it is evil by their standards. | |
| − | ===My | + | |
| − | + | Given that those standards are themselves supporting of [[selfishness]] and similar behavior which most people regard as fundamentally [[bad]], however, this is no condemnation of socialism. | |
| + | ===Definitional Ambiguity=== | ||
| + | Given these widely differing results, it is critical to understand what supporters of "capitalism" mean when they use the word. | ||
| + | ===My Definitions=== | ||
| + | [[capitalism/woozle|Woozle capitalism]] seems to be very much at odds with [[socialism/woozle|woozle socialism]] in that if investment tends to be profitable, [[wealth concentration|wealth will concentrate]] more and more in the hands of fewer and fewer – unless the act of investment creates more wealth than is returned to the investor. | ||
This may happen under certain circumstances, but has not generally been the case since approximately the middle of the 20th century... and in many cases where this seemed to be taking place, it was actually more a case of a natural resource that should have been common property (e.g. fossil fuel) being declared the property of a few. | This may happen under certain circumstances, but has not generally been the case since approximately the middle of the 20th century... and in many cases where this seemed to be taking place, it was actually more a case of a natural resource that should have been common property (e.g. fossil fuel) being declared the property of a few. | ||
Latest revision as of 01:06, 28 May 2019
This analysis by Woozle involves Woozle's definitions of capitalism and socialism.
About
There are differing views on whether capitalism (in general) is at odds with woozle socialism.
Conflict: No
Some self-identified supporters of capitalism (however they may define it) argue that it is the economic system which best serves the goals of woozle socialism. This may be true for some definitions of capitalism (e.g. those which allow for strong regulation and social safety-nets), though it is definitely not true for all.
Conflict: Yes
Other capitalism-supporters argue that there is no such thing as society and that market forces are in fact the very definition of fairness, therefore the poor deserve poverty and the rich deserve wealth (the fair world fallacy), and often go on to conclude that socialism is therefore evil.
Given the flat contradiction between this and woozle socialism – which recognizes that no economic system is perfectly fair, and therefore society must sometimes intervene to restore a modicum of balance and fairness – it does seem logical to say that it is evil by their standards.
Given that those standards are themselves supporting of selfishness and similar behavior which most people regard as fundamentally bad, however, this is no condemnation of socialism.
Definitional Ambiguity
Given these widely differing results, it is critical to understand what supporters of "capitalism" mean when they use the word.
My Definitions
Woozle capitalism seems to be very much at odds with woozle socialism in that if investment tends to be profitable, wealth will concentrate more and more in the hands of fewer and fewer – unless the act of investment creates more wealth than is returned to the investor.
This may happen under certain circumstances, but has not generally been the case since approximately the middle of the 20th century... and in many cases where this seemed to be taking place, it was actually more a case of a natural resource that should have been common property (e.g. fossil fuel) being declared the property of a few.