Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 5
th, 2012 at 5:23pm:
In most of these things the end result is a few owning everything and the masses having nothing. Capitalism, communism = same end result.
You're probably right to some extent, except I don't think Australians own nothing. It's relative. We have a lot more than people have in third world countries.
The difference between socialism and capitalism is the distribution of property. If people can't own things, then they won't spend their whole lives trying to increase their collection of "wealth." They have no permanent home, no permanent car, television, washing machine, stove, etc. Everything they have belongs to the state.
In a pure socialist society, life revolves around work. In a capitalist society, life revolves around the accumulation of property.
Because people don't waste their time trying to accumulate more property in a socialist society (because they own nothing), they don't waste energy and resources on something "essentially useless" and can redirect their efforts toward something of real utilitarian value like producing capital and white goods, health services or developing a country's military hardware.
Can you increase your worth as a person in a socialist society? Yes. Are you completely equal to everyone else? No. Everybody has something to contribute. Some people are labourers and tradespeople. Some people become scientists and engineers. The State will throw more money at people who contribute more to society. For example, scientists and engineers may be paid more. Because there'd be no buying or selling of property in a purely socialist society, all money paid to scientists and engineers will be spent on R&D projects rather than mortgages.
The trouble with a purely socialist society is that the responsibility for deciding the worth of any work is with a single centralised organisation: the State. If the State mistakenly pours tons of money into projects that ultimately don't help the country as a whole, the entire society suffers. If they also fail to support or sponsor people who have great potential, they will also miss some really great opportunities.
One of the benefits of letting people own "stuff" is so that they can play and experiment with, study and get to know their "stuff." If you control what people own, you might take away the opportunity for someone to develop valuable talents. A person who owns a car may become a car mechanic. A person who owns a computer could become a software developer or accountant. If you can keep your textbooks you might one day be a rocket scientist.
A capitalist society (to some extent) balances itself out. If a company produces a product or offers a service that is practically useless and nobody wants, that company will lose a lot of money and probably go bankrupt and go out of business. It's economic darwinism -- survival of the fittest. The worth of any product, service, project, equipment or property is determined by how willing people are to put money into it. If that product/service/project fails to succeed in its goals, the company that made it will suffer, but the effect on the rest of society is much less than in a purely socialist society.
One of my main gripes with capitalism is money going to inflated property bubbles rather than to production of goods with utilitarian value. I reckon the inflated property bubble is one reason why Australia's manufacturing base hasn't been growing. People put so much money into something that ultimately doesn't do anything but sit there: a house. It's just a construction of wood, brick and cement!!
I think auctions are ridiculous. Auctions contribute to inflation. If someone wants to buy a house, it should be first-come-first-serve, not who's got the most money. Auctions should be replaced with waiting lists.
Forum
Pages: 
