Socialism vs Capitalism

What is it that would make everyone happy?

We don’t like each other enough for socialism to work.

If the purpose of life is to enjoy it, why isn’t everyone enjoying it? Some peoples purpose is to not enjoy it. They find themselves doing the stress of dislike over and over again, bitching and then doing it again. It is nearly impossible to overcome your programming.

Socialism is the best way to lower expectations of happiness and equalize doldrum. Killing creativity is the best way to make everything fair. Making everything fair is counter intuitive to evolution and the way the universe operates.

Capitalism works because it isn’t fair, while simultaneously being completely fair.

If capitalism were fair it would be socialism. Bringing in socialism is probably the best way it insure we would finally develop a better form of government.

I would rather take my chances than have you take them for me. Socialism on the coattails of capitalism is theft. For socialism to succeed it need be voluntary, and we don’t like each other enough for that.

Is the metric fairness or contentment, and for who?

Nobody has ever asked about this pencil sketch

Author: jimoeba

Alternatives to big box religions and dogmas

56 thoughts on “Socialism vs Capitalism”

    1. Very interesting insights. That Marx had it right but had the wrong species seems pretty accurate. Our evolution has not kept pace with our technology. We are still hunter gatherers with lots of dangerous devices—and cities full of disputatious minds.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Dear Jim,

        Socialism aside, as can be seen from the detailed discussion in my said post, capitalism also hardly fares any better with the human species. You are very welcome to leave your comment(s) in my said post as a token of your visit. Just copy and paste your previous reply as part of your forthcoming comment to be submitted to the comment section of the post, to which your previous reply clearly pertains and also belongs. Please feel free to expand on your comment(s) if you have additional matters to convey about the very expansive post and any salient aspects of its contents. Thank you in anticipation.

        Yours sincerely,

        Liked by 2 people

  1. Darwinism, or “only the strong survive,” the premise of capitalism and competition, was merely an observation on animal behavior, and was never intended to be elevated into a social construct, a model for how we as humans operate our society. But it rapidly became justification for leaving the weak, ill and incompetent behind. We are not animals, so why model our behavior around them?

    Liked by 4 people

    1. You may give us too much credit. The sheep may be the smartest animal in evolution. So dumb and helpless it attracts empathy, a full time guard dog and a shepherd. There are those among us who fit this pretty well.

      Liked by 5 people

      1. OMG, Sheep will get eaten and taken out of the gene pool real fast. Wolves, my man. Sheep only get empathy from us because we need the wool, and sometimes the meat. If not for that, we’d let the wolves have them long ago. But I agree…I give humanity too much credit.

        Liked by 2 people

      1. Is there any evidence of that? There seems to be plenty pointing in the opposite direction. How many species have managed to poison their own environments? How many have unleashed incomprehensible destructive energies (I’m thinking not only Hiroshima here but Chernobyl, anthrax, mustard gas, tobacco…)? But of course this depends on the definition of “smarter”.

        Liked by 2 people

    1. I will turn to our current utopia of Norway and the unspoken nature of the culture—regarding Janteloven.

      You’re not to think you are anything special
      You’re not to think you are as good as we are
      You’re not to think you are smarter than we are
      You’re not to convince yourself that you are better than we are
      You’re not to think you know more than we do
      You’re not to think you are more important than we are
      You’re not to think you are good at anything
      You’re not to laugh at us
      You’re not to think anyone cares about you
      You’re not to think you can teach us anything.
      This full article explains it pretty well, whereas my friend from Norway defines it a little simpler—why try?

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Norway aside, Jim, socialism DOES NOT stymie creativity, scientific advance, or positive feelings about oneself. Socialism just asks thar everyone is “paid” equally for work done, because in the end you cannot get your job done without the help of everyone else on the team, from the CEO down to the janitor. If any one person stops doing their job, the whole system collapses. Certainly, some positions are more easily replaced than others, but that task still needs to be done.
    The problem is those born in a capitalist society are taught at a very young age to look up to certain people and look down at others, so that is what you know how to do, what you know to look for. If you were taught the team concept from birth you might see things differently. Or maybe you just open your eyes and mind as I did. I was taught to be a capitalist, but what I saw were a few people living in luxury while the rest were forced to live in misery. And the message from the ones living in luxury: Humans were born to suffer!
    No, we were not born to suffer! We were born to live good lives, everyone working together for the good of everyone else. THIS DOES NOT LEAD TO MEDIOCRITY. This leads to happy people living together in happiness, with no need for crime or war, Everybody having enough good healthy food to eat. No one having more than anyone else. Everyone snaring what they have. No person being left out!
    I am so sick of the capitalist rant that socialism leads to mediocrity. I cannot understand how anyone falls for that bullshit!

    Liked by 3 people

    1. The political requirements always outweigh/surpass the economic benefits.
      Under socialist planning, government commands are used to allocate employment and thereby do not permit the hiring or firing of workers for strictly economic reasons. The problem with this becomes inefficient production and tension among the hard workers and the lazy.
      You don’t think it stifles creativity but it does. Why try, when 70% of the income goes to taxes and there are still the elite. That doesn’t go away.
      You can really see it currently in our unionized schools.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. True socialism has no “elite, Jim”! That is the whole idea of it. But humans being humans, especially those born into capitalist societies, need to have an elite. Only, most elites are not worthy of being elite. Look at the richest/wealthiest people in the world right now. MOST of them are greedy pricks whose main aim in their lives is to own more money. Owning money helps no one. As the inequity gap gets bigger between the haves and have nots, or have littles, the haves become hoarders. Rather than sharing their beneficience with the people of the world, they grow callous. As long as they have what they want, more and more money, all they do is use those whom they are hiding their money from. This situation is not sustainable, as Marx recognized over a hundred years ago.
        But Marx’s mistake was warning the owners, giving them advance notice of what was to come. In defence the wealthy bought the governments and the police forces to protect them. That has resulted in today’s Republican Party in the States, and Conservative parties in other democracies, and powerful dictators in countries where people have no idea about freedom.
        Is this really what you want, Jim? Very few wealthy people recognize that they are surely killing the world we live on. As long as they get their money, and keep the masses downtrodden to the point of not being able to rebel (it is called credit debt!) the world itself doesn’t matter. They will be dead by then, so what do they care? As long as they have great hoards of money when they die, they are happy.
        But the joke is on them. Nothing to do with what people call Karma, it is just happenstance. Their money cannot assure they will be rich in their next incarnation. For those who think there is a heaven, or a hell, surprise! There is no heaven, and they are creating hell on earth for their future selves, no matter what they come back as. Because, one thing for sure in my cosmology, they are coming back! And the odds are they are going to be peasants! Or cockroaches!


        1. We are getting exactly what we want. Look at the UK and most of the world, still celebrating a monarchical system—the most recognized people in the world from a de-funked governing power because the people need it.


          1. Government is a self-sustaining vicious circle. It does not allow people to learn how to govern themselves. I learned how to govern myself despite our government trying to tell me what to do. If I can do this, anyone can, if they are willing to learn.


            1. But socialism is a form of forced entropy. You can only bottle up to human spirit for so long before it breaks open. If you look at our school situation, no child left behind, standardized testing, all it’s done is reduce the expectations of excellence and if kids want to really exceed they find a private school


            2. I went to public school, though it was a long time ago. I got the education they required me to have, but I also got the education I wanted to get. The most important thing I learned was HOW TO LEARN. I have spent my whole life learning. What more could I want?


            3. I see how you ignored the failed outcomes of socialistic leveling of the playing field.
              Both Bill Hates and previously Oprah tried to inject their money into these ideals and both quit it. There is something deeper that any policy can cure. Deeper than any tax increase.


  3. I got into a heated debate—with my Mom’s former domestic partner last weekend—about this very thing. My opening remark on the subject was this:

    Hyper-Capitalism is gradually self-cannibalizing by the top predators that don’t play fairly.

    I’ll leave it at that. 😉😁

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Absolutely there are problems with that side as well. Do you think any top official administrator of socialism will not do the same? If so, then what about the next one? You might get Marcus Aurelius a term or two, then come the tyrants who mistake your kindness for weakness. At least now I can play the game or not. Maybe. Hell, I don’t know.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. All you’ve surmised there is spot-on Sir! 🙂

        I do know this: Capitalism or even hyper-Capitalism is NOT the perfect solution economically for every person or peoples. That’s been proven abundantly by the U.S.’s history.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. That’s why I think socialism might be a stepping stone to a better form of government. People are very spoiled and unappreciative of the potential (and greedy, of course) that we hold right now. There is enough cash to go around yet the hoarders hoard like a WWII root cellar.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. Hmmmm. If you think socialism might be a stepping stone to a better form of government — it is our best hope right now, though not the best there can be — you certainly had me fooled with the above post and following comments. It sounded to me like you were denigrating socialism, and defending capitalism! What part of your presentation did I miss?

            Liked by 2 people

            1. Your own bias is what we always miss. The worst possible outcome would be any one-party system. You should be grateful there are conservatives.


            2. I have never advocated a one party system, and as far as I am concerned a two party system is no better. What Italy and other countries with unlimited parties have is pure chaos, but I would suggest 3 to 5 parties would be much better than what America has right now.
              Personally, I hate any kind of government, but humanity is too human to achieve my vision right now. Until we can get over ourselves we need something to set limits on certain things, but there needs to be a time when government will become useless. Our present government choices are all about keeping power, not trying to eradicate it!

              Liked by 1 person

            3. I am biased against capitalism. It favours the few over the many. I am biased against eliteism, if the elite is self-serving. I am biased against serving or servicing the few when the many are left wanting.
              This does not mean I am utilitarian. When the few are put down because they are few (minorities stepped upon by majorities), that is unacceptable to me. Utilitarianism does not address this eventuality that “I” am aware of.
              So what am I? I am a living being who does not believe on hurting other living being without good purpose. What is a good purpose is, of course, debatable. We all have our own opinions. All life lives on life, and until we are all capable of living directly off sunlight, photosynthesis, some lives must be taken. Then unjust decisions have to be made. But, setting those aside, to hurt or kill a living being and waste the value thereof, to me that is unjust.

              Liked by 1 person

      1. I got that, but that’s not the question I asked. Since all the solid points had been made in the discussion stream, I asked a (hopefully) amusing, non-sequitur question about our host’s art. “What is the duck’s name?” Is it Howard the Duck’s gay brother, Bruce??! 😉 😆

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Dear Archon,

          What you have mentioned aside, there is also the question as to why Jim chose this pencil sketch rather than something more relevant or complementary to the topic. Some may suspect that Jim is a lover of the balance and/or that his star sign could be libra, never mind that September happens to be the birth month for many Librans.

          In any case, for those who are enamoured with or have a fetish for the balance, I have featured them in many ways (including graphics and animations) in my highly illustrated post entitled “🏛️⚖️ The Facile and Labile Nature of Law: Beyond the Supreme Court and Its Ruling on Controversial Matters 🗽🗳️🔫🤰🧑‍🤝‍🧑💉“.

          Yours sincerely,


    1. It has no name. This is my daughter’s classy rendition of the scene in Monty python

      If the woman weighs the same as a duck, then she is made of wood.
      “The woman weighs the same as a duck.
      Therefore, the woman is a witch.”
      But it’s pretty fair to say how easily our logic can be flawed because of beliefs in a bogey man

      Liked by 2 people

    1. Right now in one of our most liberal cities, Seattle, the teachers are on strike because of the continuing promises forever delayed into horrible educational opportunities for the very people the left is claiming to champion. The left has been in charge here far too long and the city is abhorrent. From the schools to the streets, the sanctuary city is a nightmare.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Unfortunately, that’s EXACTLY what we have right now; unchecked capitalism. When the government is run by corporations, i.e., the FDA run by Big Agra and Big Pharma, the EPA run by companies sworn to do away with it, the treasury is run essentially by Goldman Sachs, etc., etc., on ad infinitum, this is what you get. Oh, and, uh, yeah, by the way, they don’t pay any taxes either or very little taxes. So they want compete control over our economy, our laws and regulations, unfettered access to our markets, BUT they do not want to contribute in any way to our society. Keep in mind the GOPs role in defeating every social structure and benefits programs for the last 50 years.

      Liked by 4 people

        1. I don’t believe that led to this, and so on. I bought my first house under Reagan. Before that we had double digit interest rates then a spike in prices. Same as now, really. Those at the fed level continue to treat money like a monopoly printer. This has been happening since Nixon. Rs and Ds alike.

          Liked by 1 person

  4. It always puzzles me when anyone describes socialism and capitalism as opposite things. It’s a myopic viewpoint. They are different, but not incompatible. When humans learn to properly blend them, we will have a more just society and *possibly* more happiness in the world. Also much less waste of precious resources. Better for the planet and every living thing.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Capitalism and socialism were meant to work together not standing alone as sole rulers of the people. It’s a question of relative assignment.

    If we are dealing with products for sale, then we want capitalism, it will serve the people best by driving down cost.

    If we are dealing with education then we want socialism to prevent the rich from subjugating the poor and weakening the nation in competition with other nations and their populace.

    That which benefits us the most in the pursuit of happiness and freedom should be applied but never one or the other.


      1. Socialism doesn’t provide curriculum, it provides access. It favours access to school for more or all people.

        The curriculum in a school is defined by the majority not by a political party. You could argue that a majority of people are left in America because of the popular vote results and thus that school tends to lean left depending on your state or town but it’s not a true left.

        School is focused on money and resources. It’s a place to groom children for the work place, which is a conservative concept not liberal.

        You may have fanciful idealologies that are shiny left objects in school to distract but at the end of the day it’s a zombie factory for capitalism.


        Liked by 1 person

        1. Gone are the days of the liberal arts education where it offered an expansive intellectual grounding in all kinds of humanistic inquiry. By exploring issues, ideas and methods across the humanities and the arts, and the natural and social sciences, you will learn to read critically, write cogently and think broadly.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Gone yes but replaced with the internet.

            Which (fact) offers all of that on a much larger scale.


            Also idiocracy on a large scale.

            Maybe what we are in could be described as “Scary Better”

            A mind can now engage in the arts without limit……….IF………. it can survive an onslaught of endlessly tempting shiny extremism posts to get there.


            1. Sure. The internet is mostly a distraction.
              I have two in college right now. They are learning to hate their parents and are becoming more and more Marxist. It is a sham that the activists professors recruit ignorant college students.


            2. But they have not been robbed of free choice.

              You had your time with them and now others

              They need time to process and then they get to choose.

              By the time they choose a side liberal / conservative … far this far that….. they will have school debt, house debt, car debt

              In other words don’t worry, they will not be far left or right they will be worker ants for the machine.

              Relax, it’s a process

              Liked by 1 person

        2. “The curriculum in a school is defined by the majority not by a political party.”.

          Apparently you haven’t been reading the educational changes/activities of Mr. DeSantis in Florida. Pretty politically partisan if you ask me.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. There is no doubt of the reality of shiny agendas and flashy headlines with local school changes, but school remains a successful machine for churning out office workers regardless of political affiliation.

            What I’m saying is to ignore what the school says it does and only look at where the children end up later…. Working side by side, in check-to-check survival, in debt, making the rich richer.

            If 99% of them end up in the same place then political agenda is nonsensical. This is a class agenda system, and the proof is all around us.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. You Asked — “What do you suggest?”

              My Answer — Parents should stop caring about what schools teach. It’s a nonsensical fear.

              Even if they have the perfect school, only teaching what the parents want… the children… will still be taught undesirable lessons from unseen resources.

              Other kids
              Other adults

              Parents can’t possibly protect their children from leaning things they don’t want them to learn.

              Instead, they should focus on teaching their children how to think and how to reason.

              Parents can only give them options of understanding not absolutes of what is right or wrong. If they teach them well and raise them to be thinkers rather than knowers, then they will not have to worry about anything.

              The key is giving them tools to think and the freedom to make their own decisions without judgement.

              It doesn’t matter if they are right or wrong but rather if they are loved and respected.

              Just a thought

              Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: