The intellectual dark web

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Thor

This is not Deepak Chopra

I think my favourite part is the statement, "not everybody agrees with it". You don't say!
By "not everybody", do you mean "no reputable physicist whatsoever"?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

A little like you throwing about the "alt-right" label anytime someone is inches right of you?

You should try finding a post where I've called someone here alt-right. The results might surprise you.

[crazy_eoj]

Made me laugh

NSFW!

[Red Slinger]

Do you understand the difference between Socialism and Communism?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Thor

This is not Deepak Chopra

Wait, that's Peterson?

I mean I knew Peterson had some laughably bad science in his stuff (the biology / evolution stuff is what I'm more familiar with), but jeez.

[Lanny_McDonald]

@crazy_eoj

Must be a 4Chan thing.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Do you understand the difference between Socialism and Communism?

He’s gonna freak when he realises how much influence socialism already has in Canada and about a dozen other countries at the top of the quality of life index.

[Ashasx]

Are you referring to countries like Sweden and Norway?

Would you really classify these countries as more socialist than capitalist?

[woob]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Are you referring to countries like Sweden and Norway?

Would you really classify these countries as more socialist than capitalist?

How much influence =/= more socialist than capitalist.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by woob

How much influence =/= more socialist than capitalist.

By the same vein I could say "He’s gonna freak when he realizes how much influence capitalism already has in Canada and about a dozen other countries at the top of the quality of life index."

Who in this thread is denying a pure capitalist or pure socialist society is a bad idea? We already understand and accept that taxation and social programs exist in our countries to maintain infrastructure, re-distribute wealth, and help the less fortunate, but the creation of wealth most primarily relates to the capitalist ideals of an individual's pursuit of income.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by photon

Wait, that's Peterson?

I mean I knew Peterson had some laughably bad science in his stuff (the biology / evolution stuff is what I'm more familiar with), but jeez.

It does sound strangely close to the post-modernist notion that reality is just a social construct.

Still, Peterson is hardly the only thinker who rejects strict materialism.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

By the same vein I could say "He’s gonna freak when he realizes how much influence capitalism already has in Canada and about a dozen other countries at the top of the quality of life index."

Who in this thread is denying a pure capitalist or pure socialist society is a bad idea? We already understand and accept that taxation and social programs exist in our countries to maintain infrastructure, re-distribute wealth, and help the less fortunate, but the creation of wealth most primarily relates to the capitalist ideals of an individual's pursuit of income.

I guess you could say that, but then you’re not really paying attention to the thread.

You’re explaining the very basic value of each, but the conversation that has been going on revolves around the influence and significant of each economic system.

There are absolutely people in this thread who believe capitalism = good and socialism = bad. There have been posters trotting out Venezuela as a “see, socialism bad!” line of reasoning, and others calling capitalism the greatest success story in human history. It’s blind religious devotion handed down not from the Information Age, but from stories of the boogeyman originating from anti-communist propaganda years and years ago. It’s all kind of funny.

Of course a blend is necessary, but capitalism (in those countries overly dependent upon it, like the US) is failing, as it’s reached past the point of it’s ability to grow a nation. At a certain point in every nation, capitalism must give way to socialism to growing degrees. There are countries that have enacted this, but the unfortunate thing is the most influential nation in the world hasn’t, and it will have the greatest negative impact on the world’s economy when things start to fall apart (and they will).

Capitalism simply isn’t equipped to solve it’s own problems, socialism must. The longer the US holds on to it’s religious devotion to capitalism, the worse it’ll be for the world’s economy.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Of course a blend is necessary, but capitalism (in those countries overly dependent upon it, like the US) is failing, as it’s reached past the point of it’s ability to grow a nation. At a certain point in every nation, capitalism must give way to socialism to growing degrees.

Most countries shift back and forth between more free markets and more regulation and taxes. The UK, for instance, was much more socialist in 1974 than it is today. The state owned much of the coal industry, utilities, and subsidized heavy industry, and the highest marginal tax rate was 95 per cent "One for you, nineteen for me..." Then Thatcher came along.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

By the same vein I could say "He’s gonna freak when he realizes how much influence capitalism already has in Canada and about a dozen other countries at the top of the quality of life index."

Who in this thread is denying a pure capitalist or pure socialist society is a bad idea? We already understand and accept that taxation and social programs exist in our countries to maintain infrastructure, re-distribute wealth, and help the less fortunate, but the creation of wealth most primarily relates to the capitalist ideals of an individual's pursuit of income.

There have definitely been a number posters who have suggested, by word or by hilarious Reddit cartoon, that socialism is bad and capitalism is good. I don't believe anyone has suggested the opposite simplistic truth (unless I missed it).

[Ashasx]

Socialism simply isn't equipped to solve its own problems, capitalism must.

Socialism in its purest form in which private property is eliminated and the means of production are controlled by the community is bad and it's the fundamental ideal behind socialism. It's in direct opposition to what we unquestionably know creates wealth in this world.

Social programs and taxation may be influenced by socialism, but the fundamental capitalist principles of the individual remain. The countries in the world with the highest quality of life have a balance of these programs, but there is no question that capitalism is the greatest influencer and is the backbone of all successful societies to have ever existed on this planet.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Most countries shift back and forth between more free markets and more regulation and taxes. The UK, for instance, was much more socialist in 1974 than it is today. The state owned much of the coal industry, utilities, and subsidized heavy industry, and the highest marginal tax rate was 95 per cent "One for you, nineteen for me..." Then Thatcher came along.

True. And of course there is good, effective "socialist" policies (some form of progressive taxation for instance) and bad, ineffective "socialist" policies (sudden nationalization of the energy industry). The trick is telling one from the other (instead of resorting to "haha, socialism sucks").

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Socialism simply isn't equipped to solve its own problems, capitalism must.

Socialism in its purest form in which private property is eliminated and the means of production are controlled by the community is bad and it's the fundamental ideal behind socialism. It's in direct opposition to what we unquestionably know creates wealth in this world.

Social programs and taxation may be influenced by socialism, but the fundamental capitalist principles of the individual remain. The countries in the world with the highest quality of life have a balance of these programs, but there is no question that capitalism is the greatest influencer and is the backbone of all successful societies to have ever existed on this planet.

I'm interested to know what you mean by "capitalism must solve its own problems".

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I'm interested to know what you mean by "capitalism must solve its own problems".

Where did I say that? I don't deny that pure unregulated capitalism isn't able to solve all of its own problems, from inefficient markets, monopolies, and the centralization of wealth. My opening sentence was just a play on PF's last statement.

[Lanny_McDonald]

The argument of capitalism vs. socialism is always going to be a bad one to engage in. Both have their strengths, and both have their weaknesses. A blended approach is the best, but the mix varies from country to country and culture to culture. There is no single mix that is a recipe to success.

Capitalism is good for generating wealth and incentivizing people to better themselves. The problem with capitalism is it rewards the few for the work of the many. The vast majority of the money and property ends up in the hands of the elites, and the rest of society are left to live off the scraps. Success in the capitalist system is based on access to capital, or developing a product that willelevate you past the need for capital. Unless you capture lightning in a bottle, or build the better mouse trap, the potential to elevate yourself within the capitalist system are extremely limited. Where capitalism works best is innovating to meet the needs of the market, and then generating value to the shareholder as a result of meeting the market need. On the other hand socialism is good at providing for the needs of the many, but at the expense of the many. Socialism doesn't incentivize people well, and it does not allow for opportunity to lift oneself up to the heights possible through the capitalist approach.

Socialism allows for us to work collectively to protect our society as a whole from dangers. The military, law enforcement, and transportation systems are examples that jump out. They serve the common good. In that same vein, education, healthcare, and social welfare should be treated the same way. Things that make use better and stronger as a nation should be left to the socialists. Capitalism should never be allowed to leverage the misfortune of others to generate money. Because someone has cancer, a corporation should not be allowed to bleed the individual dry to generate a profit, while sending that individual into bankruptcy. It only makes our society weaker and only goes counter to what makes us better human beings.

Conversely, socialism should allow industry the latitude to create value and jobs. There are controls that need to be put in place on the capitalist system, but only for the protections of the society as a whole. Capitalists should be willing to do this stuff voluntarily, as a safe protected customer is one that will come back and buy your product or service again. But because making a buck can lead to abuses, there is a need for governance over operations, and that is best handed to those with the greater mission and focus. I would argue that I would much prefer to have one of those godless socialists acting as oversight than a money grubbing robber baron. One is more representative of the collective need, while the other is focused on individual need, which is the greatest weakness of the capitalist system itself.

Sorry for rambling, but finding the secret sauce that balances capitalism and socialism is a huge challenge. Some are better at it than others. I sure wish the US was better at it and could emulate a lot more of the things Canada does in establishing and maintaining the social contract and safety net with the masses.

[CliffFletcher]

To try to bring this back on topic, it's funny how the American right has tried to claim Peterson as one of their own (and the Canadian left vilify him), even though he's come out in support of Canada's universal health care system, and other mainstream Canadian social policies that are far beyond the pale in American conservative circles.