Capitalism vs socialism

Under Capitalism, a farmer making a living and feeding his family sees a field across the road from him for sale and he says to himself, "If I buy that field and farm it also, I can make more money and provide better for my family, my kids education etc.
Under Socialism, a farmer getting by on what the government allows him to keep, sees a field across the road and realizes that, if he were to buy that field (if in fact he could be allowed by the socialist government to buy it), and farmed the extra acreage, he would not get anything more to help his family as the extra would be taken by the government and handed to those "less fortunate". He therefore decides not to buy the field and realizes that if he works his land less, the socialists will still give him the same amount to live on so he becomes a slacker and lets the place go and it produces less for "the socialist network" but, the farmer doesn't care, he is still getting the same check so, why worry.

This is why a socialist government cannot and will not work on any long term basis and is exactly why the USA has been headed for problems ever since it started all the socialist programs, like social security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, SSI disability, etc. The more of these weighty programs you add onto the rolls the more overburdened the underpinnings become, and the sooner the collapse. Now the US Govt. is wanting to add a national health care system to the pile.

There is no way to pay for social security or Medicare down the road but, let's add more debt and socialist spending and see how soon we can bring the country down.

A true socialist system does not have private property. Everything is collectively owned.

Another version of your story is:

"Under socialism, a farmer sees a field across the road and he says to himself, 'I can work that field and provide more food and resources for everyone in the country to share.' "

The problem with this is that he is much less likely to care about working that field and improving the lives of all of his countrymen an insignificant amount than he is about working that field and providing significant benefits for himself.

You haven't swayed me from capitalism.

I'm... not trying to.

Why does every argument against socialism seem to be created from hypothetical situations which we are supposed to put onto a grander scale?

We just need to wait for the proletariat to realise the only thing they can do to improve their lives is by seizing control of the means of production blah blah blah.

Whats wrong with democratic socialism? That thing what takes aspects of both socialism and capitalism? Conservative communism I think Marx called it.

Democratic Socialism...Interesting. Explain?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Labour_Party_(UK)

Capitalism but with a welfare state. The idea that through our common endeavor we can acheive more than we could alone. Use capitalism to the advantage of everyone. Likes of what the Labour party used to represent.

Sounds a lot more capitalist than socialist to me.

It may be. Nationalising of industry and the welfare state are typically socialist thoughts though.

You assume that the capitalist farmer can raise the cash to buy the next field. Capitalism encourages people to be greedy and make lots of money, leading to huge gaps between rich and poor. That was the main factor behind the Russian and French revolutions and is something that many people feel bitter about. It also allows such things to happen as the banking crisis. While banks were losing money, the executives were still paying themselves huge amounts with large bonuses which contributed to the crisis.

My aunt had a spell with the mortgage lender Skiptons, and she said that the "affordability calculator" they used didn't take any of the expenses already paid by the applicant. Even day-to-day expenses such as food and electricity bills were not taken into account. The only thing taken into account was the amount they earned. My grandparents, both retired, got a phone call offering them a loan of 15,000 or more, should they want it. So it was about making money now and forgetting about later.

As for socialism, well that probably wouldn't work because of simple human nature. Just look at the whole Stalin thing. He went nuts with power and he's not the only person to have done so and turned a "communist government" into a facist dictatorship claming to be what it's not.

Social democracy seems to work pretty well though.

That's a really good plan. It's no surprise why the world's governments aren't changing into it. Those CAPITALISTS (and I use the capitals to signify how big they are) won't bother to change their systems for the betterment of the whole country. It would cost a lot of money and put a dent in their fat pockets.

Any productive AND morally respectable society needs to incorparate elements of both.
It's a matter of balance, most people in the west would sway to the side of capitalism.

Some people run around talking about socialism as if it is the boogeyman, it's silly. It's not some scary concept or agenda that will ruin your life.

Only super-watered-down socialism.

Socialism is about the destruction of private property in its entirety. Societal, collective ownership.

A system based on private property and ownership and profit with a couple of collectivist elements thrown in isn't socialism.

meh, hasn't done much for us yet