Part 1. Socialism and capitalism, but where the golden middle?

in steemit •  3 years ago 

Thanks STEEMIT! I can tell you, I can express my thoughts. I am very interested in becoming @gangsta "Socialism v Capitalism – isn’t it about time we changed the record?" I did not expect that this issue will arouse great interest among many people. I am very grateful for the comment @kooshikoo . This topic interests me very much, too. I want to express my thoughts on the subject.I want to say, as described on the @kooshikoo "Сollaborative ownership of the means of production, " I have written in earlier comments that Socialism is more than just equality of people. Each gives the result of labor and receives income from this result. But how to comply this condition in this system. Who should regulate these complex scales. How to avoid unfair distribution. Where is this criterion.

 I agree that capitalism produces quick thinking and growth of various businesses. However, not all people can receive sufficient income. There is a great disparity between people

 Socialism is the economic formation of society in which private ownership of the means of production is not . I have no right to have their own factories, companies. Director of the firm must be subject to state regulatory agencies. It does not have its own funds, which can be sent to the director of a particular enterprise. Controlling the public authorities control all the funds that have accounts plants, factories or other enterprises. The owner (director) of the enterprise has only salary. Therefore, limited initiative of the Director. There is no competition. The owner (director) has no right to sell its plant, factory or other business enterprise, because the state owns these companies. The owner (director) may leave the company. He should resign. But he will only receive a salary. He did not receive a company's value.

 The state owns all the finances. As a rule, business accounts are virtual money. The government decides to buy the machine or not. A State may send all finances on one goal at any time. One political party controls the state. State depends on the activity of the party. The power in the state is becoming highly centralized. One person controls the party This phenomenon can easily lead to dictatorship.

 The party leader will concentrate in their hands the power of all the power and finances of the entire state. The activities and the life of any person in the country will depend on the will of the statesman. Leaders of political parties are different. There were leaders of a political party with a less violent tendencies. Usually, these leaders consult with members of the party. They considered their proposals.                                                           

 By the way, the head of a political party has not the right to own property in the means of production and fixed assets. He has the right to own personal property only. For example: When Khrushchev left his post of head of state and a political party, he returnd the furniture that was in the villa.When Brezhnev died, his wife had to returns the villa.

These events are associated with the principle of social equality and social justice

 I described a very primitive system of the socialist state, but in fact it is.

 Socialism is the economic formation of society in which private ownership of the means of production. This principle, as will be observed? The control of this rests on political party that controls the state apparatus, the ministries, etc. Ministry organize proper distribution of GDP. Distribute GDP is very difficult to under the principle of socialism. Many people get a low level of income. It is difficult to sustain the correct matching amount of labor expended and the resulting income for every citizen. Often it comes down to egalitarianism. Therefore, people lose the desire to work and make effective quality.
 I described the shortcomings of socialism primitive, but we can call a huge number of positive aspects of socialism:

 Right to work. Every citizen has the right to get the job done. Every citizen should be employed in their specialty. If a person deviates from getting a job, he can even be brought to justice. The slogan: "Who does not work - does not eat," observed strictly.
  The right to free education. Citizen receives secondary or higher education, but it does not pay for it.  On the contrary, students and graduate students receive scholarships.

 The right to free medical care. The citizen does not pay for the visit to the doctor. In addition, the citizen does not pay for the implementation of the most complex operations. Naturally, the cost of these operations is very large.

 Grants were given for the production of meat, butter and other products. Therefore, the main products were cheap. The prices of these products were below cost.

 So-called "Funds of public consumption" were significant. People visited cultural centers, took a book to home to read . They did not paid for it. People visited sports clubs, playing hockey to rinks, playing football in the stadiums.  They is not paid for it Children rested in pioneer camps. Children participated in various activities, go hiking, swam, sunbathing, playing football. Parents do not pay for this.

  The citizen, who worked at the company, had the right to receive housing. He  received a house after 3 - 6 years, sometimes earlier. Citizen   not paid for the provision of housing, but he had the right to live in this housing to death. Of course, he had no right to sell this housing, but his children had the right to live in this housing after death father and mother . They is not paid for it.

  Housing services were cheap. Also kilowatt-hour electric power petrol were cheap. Obviously, Aeroflot, the railroad received grants from the state, because the tickets were not expensive, affordable. In the winter vacation, students had the right to buy tickets cheaper in 2 times on a plane or train. Obviously, theaters received grants too, because the tickets costed 15 - 10 times less than the wages.

  A major role is given to the trade unions. The trade union holiday resorts in the cost of 3 - 4 times less than the wages. Trade unions organized the purchase of fruits and vegetables at much lower prices  for winter. The unions organized a trip to the nature of enterprise employees to rest on Sunday. The employees were not paid for it

 From the above it is clear that people receive additional income, in addition to the salary is not very high.

 It can be concluded that socialism has great disadvantages, but socialism has great advantages over capitalism. Socialism has the indisputable advantage that state can send huge amounts of money for the implementation of an ambitious

project and to carry out the project in a short time. For example, the construction of
the Baikal-Amur Railway, Krasnoyarsk HES and others

The question is very important:

                 How can we improve socialism?

                 How to bring it to perfection?

                 Is it better to take from capitalism?

                 Do we need to take from capitalism?

                 Us to build  a completely new system?
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

From a brief reading of history one will find that Socialism kills. Every time it's been tried it fails. Venezuela is the perfect example. Capitalism, and by that I mean the free market has been incredibly successful every time it's been tried. Unfortunately it is never left alone. There are always those who would rather steal than work so they convince the government to regulate. Government is a a cancer and never fails to take any opportunity to grow. So it does. Government regulation is like a camel. Once it get's it's nose in the tent, soon enough it takes over the whole tent.
Once again...Venezuela...once the most prosperous country in South America. Now, in only a couple of decades since int went can't even feed it's children.

Two things in closing.

Number one. The Free Market can be compared to the weather in that it is a chaotic system. By Chaotic I mean that there are SO many variables that it's impossible to understand sufficiently to control. An old saying I learned in Munitions is 'if you don't understand it....don't mess with it"

Number Two. The Free Market works best, for everyone, when it's Free. It works less well , for every one, when it's less free. The less free it is, the less well it works. When it's regulated it steps on the slippery slope and begins the long slide toward socialism. Like Venezuela where children starve but the daughter of Chavez is a billionaire.


Thank you for your confidence and your positive feedback, I like what you said. Thank you again.
Yes, capitalism can go easily into socialism


I am trying to contact you through http://@everittdmickey

it seems, some of the critical questions are, what is the weakness that makes free markets so susceptible to subversion by crony socialism, crony crapitalism, and overgrowth of authoritarian and totalitarian big government in general? more precisely, i think, but not limited to, what aspect of the human dynamic is incompatible with the function of "isms"? the function of "isms" can change, the human dynamic, will not. economic behavior modification, or coercion of any sort, will only, inevitably lead to error and consequently, to collapse. free markets, until they seem to inevitably succumb to this subversion, at least produce the most prosperity. politically planned economies, with their inbuilt inefficiencies, can never work as well as a free market for producing innovation. Which is better, great disparity, where half are wealthy, or no disparity where everyone is poor and so poor that many just die? The idea should be to grow the total prosperity, as much as possible, so that the people who eat out of trash cans have something there to eat, instead of everyone going hungry and calling it equality, because no one can even eat out of the trash, because there is nothing to throw away.


Thank you for your confidence and your positive feedback, I like what you said. Thank you again. I agree with you that socialism Pol Pot was terrible, but there were countries with a human face.