NationStates Jolt Archive

I am Voting Capitalism. Why did i make this becasue 99% of thread in general boil down to it.

:headbang:
capitalism is an economic system, socialism is a government style, you can't really compare them in the way you are thinking

Well some goverments defend capitalism, some socielism.

:headbang:
capitalism is an economic system, socialism is a government style, you can't really compare them in the way you are thinking

Agreed. Choosing one or the other would negate such countries as most of Scandinavia and us up in good old Soviet Kanuckistan.

man i don't rember when i last saw such a close race for them on nationsates.

Socialism is an economic system of equal wealth for every member of the nation. I.E. that everyone does what they are most capable of doing to contribute to the whole, and the results of the whole get spread equally and fairly (according to need) among the members.

I voted socialism, but I don't really agree with that. Either one work equally well for everyone when the members are 'honorable' or what have you. For that matter, any political or economic system can work well when the members are intelligent and care about the system and the other people. Neither one is inherently better than the other.

The main reason capitalism has beaten socialism historically is because of A) the vast differences in the resources available to the two systems, and B) the vast differences in the corruption and sentiment of the two systems' leaders. If Russia had the resources of the U.S. and the quality (in general, there are certainly a lot of exceptions on both sides) of the leadership while the U.S. had theirs, we'd all be speaking russian now.

Well, if I threadjacked this thang, would be socialism in action, as I currently have no thread. So,

read any good books lately?

/JK, Capitalism. The above is the reason why I support it.

As I see it the main problem with capitalism in the modern world is one of accountability.

Most of us live in democracies, where the government is at least theoretically responsible to the people. Many large corporations nowadays have more resources (=power) than the smaller countries. They have no democratic responsibilities whatsoever.

:headbang:
capitalism is an economic system, socialism is a government style, you can't really compare them in the way you are thinking

You know, if you stopped banging your head against the wall, some sense might get through. Socialism is a socio-economic theory that can be matched to political theories. If, as you wrong-headedly claim, socialism is a style of government, then explain libertarian socialism. You're talking about STATE socialism, the STATE part providing the style of government.

Vas.

I vote socialism for when I am poor and capitalism for when I am rich.
Few really care until they have to.

Yay! An argument I like. Which is BETTER?

Well, capitalism, obviously. Socialism is what you get when you try to be a communist, but can't quite find it on the map. Socialist economic theory is junk and governments are not necessarily better than corporations.

While governments aren't necessarily better than corporations, they usually are, for the reason that governments can usually be held accountable, more so than corporations. This was mentioned above.

In fact, I vote for eco-economics.

Yay! An argument I like. Which is BETTER?

Well, capitalism, obviously. Socialism is what you get when you try to be a communist, but can't quite find it on the map. Socialist economic theory is junk and governments are not necessarily better than corporations.

So you abolish governments as well. Doh!

Vas.

This can't be answered, really. Socialiosm is a form of government, Capitalism is an economy.

Depending on what you mean by the terms I could go with either, or both. In politics I have a miniscule preference for what is called capitalism usually by its supporters over what is called socialism usually by its supporters, but it is miniscule. If I accept the usual anti-Capitalist defintiions of capitalism and the usual socialist defintion of socialism then of course socialism is preferable, likewise the reverse is true. I consider my prefered ideal system to be capitalist, but it does bear many similarities to some forms of socialism and few anti-capitists would accept my ideal system (minimal government with right to exclusive right to use force and no powers beyond the use of force, with private property and the right to free exercise thereof) as either: being viable or meeting the defintion of capitalist.

This can't be answered, really. Socialiosm is a form of government, Capitalism is an economy.

I'll type it slowly...

NO... IT... IS... NOT! What the fuck do they teach Americans in school? Socialism is an economic theory, mmkay? It's matched with political theories to create a system, mmmkya? You're talking about State socialism, mmkay? That's only one form of socialism, mmmkay? Libertarian socialism is anarchism, which has no government, mmmkay? Ignorance is bad, mmmkay?

Vas.

YES COMRADES!

Socialism is winning, lets show the hicks and concentrators of wealth who the REAL power is. We stand up for everything that is good and noble, such as caring for people with less opportunities in life, and thus a worse life overall. You can't simply say its 'ALL DERE OWN FAULT!!!!!!'.

If into a black family in Inner City LA where your dad could hardly ever find a job and your mum struggled to care for you would it necessarily be your fault that you happened to be born into a family that has far less opportunities in terms of education at an early age/college as well as countless other areas such as healthcare would it be your fault? No.

And before you start going - "Your a benefit fraud!!!!", My dad is the head of Business Banking (handling of rich clients) in the bank of Cyprus. He earns a good wage (above 65k, in pounds), but is strongly socialist despite the fact he would be better off under a Conservative Government. And despite the advantages I have, I still remain a committed socialist as well.

Teach? In school? Heh, American schools are just a place to put consumers until they're old enough to get into credit card debt.

Anyway, when Microsoft or Sony starts committing genocide, waging wars, subverting governments and installing puppet regimes, and carving out their own territory in the world at the cost of helpless governments, then yes, I will believe whoever said governments can usually be held more accountable.

Otherwise, the history shows that governments do the worst, and get away with it most.

And an another note it's sad to see how many socialists are around here. Sigh.

It's simple, capitalism is good for those who take responsibility for their decisions/actions, want to better themselves (And beleive there are better/worse, smarter/stupider people), and believe that many should govern both financially and legislatitively others.

Socialism is good for those who like to blame others for their forced reactionary decision/actions, envy others who have been fortunate or worked hard to gain their possibly superior socioeconomic status in life (of course socialists believe these people just stole their position from them), believe that people who graduated from high school and work at Burger King, and one from medical school should be entitled to equal pay, and believe in a select few government officials driving fancy cars and living in mansions (living a capitalistic lifestyle in a socialist country) running their daily lives.

It is a system for lazy, envious conformists who are all for taking away things from those who have more than them because they believe that the government will actually give the things they THINK belong to them, back to them. They don't mind only envying a few in government rather than many in private industry; when in private industry at least they had the hope to maybe better themselves. Unfortunately, these people believe that they have ben shortchanged in life by the stupid, dishonest, and evil rich, and will be lazy until the government takes it away from them and gives it back to them. Question...if the rich are so stupid, dishonest, and evil, how come they became rich before you? Are you so stupid and un-resourceful as to not be able to overtake them? Maybe you need to become a stupid, dishonest, and evil capitalist...it doesn't seem that hard to do...maybe the rewards are worthwhile. But wait! It might mean you'd actually have to work and go to school to study an appropriate field. No 9 to 5 jobs for the people who wish to advance, but once you advance, you might be able to find or create one of those 5 to 9 jobs...it's a reward for your hard work.

Newsflash: Nobody owes you anything but yourself! Live up to your potential and stop blaming others for your shortcomings and/or poor decisions in life. Don't expect others to give you anything, even in socialism. In such a system I guarantee you, things will only be taken away from the "rich" but your situation will not improve. But well, I guess you'll be happy, at least everyone will be the same...POOR. Hope you never catch a glimpse of your all knowing hyporcritical rulers.

This can't be answered, really. Socialiosm is a form of government, Capitalism is an economy.
I get tired of this, both terms can refer to either an economic system or a political system. Neither is technically a form of government, governmental form refers to structure and process by which a government governs - Democracy either direct or indirect is a form of government, Monarchy is a form of government, Fuedalism is a form of government, Autocracy is a form of government, even Parilmentarianism (usually considered a form of indirect democracy) can be a form of government. Socialism and Capitalism are not forms of governments but are value systems and ideologies which governments (and individuals) adopt, Canada and Taiwan have effectively the same form of government (Parlimentarianism) but few people would call Taiwan socialist.

A rule of thumb I like that is only a rule of thumb and by no means definitive runs like this
A country is capitalist if it meets these criteria:
1. Openly professes a capitalist economic system, prices are controlled by an open market
2. The vast majority of the means of production are privately owned
3. The vast majority of the people in the nation must earn a wage in order to survive

A country is socialist of it meets these criteria:
1. Openly professes a belief in the right of the commons
2. Government has the right to regulate prices/wage
3. Some ownership or control of the means of production is held by the government
4. The vast majority of the population can survive without earning a wage

It's simple, capitalism is good for those who take responsibility for their decisions/actions, want to better themselves (And beleive there are better/worse, smarter/stupider people), and believe that many should govern both financially and legislatitively others.


I bet this bloke isn't even well off, hes probably just a hick who pretends hes rich to further enforce his Republican standing.

What about access to education? College money? The state of schools in the inner city compared to private schools? Aren't these all factors that influence the development of a child's intelligence and therefore make some people more/less inclined to suceed?

Anyways, all you spout is rhetoric.

What about access to education? College money? The state of schools in the inner city compared to private schools? Aren't these all factors that influence the development of a child's intelligence and therefore make some people more/less inclined to suceed?

Yep. Some succeed, some fail. Luck plays a big role. The problem with socialist viewpoints such as yours is that you think by 'simply' controlling all the factors, you can MAKE everyone have 100% equal opportunities. Unfortunately for you, even if such totalitarian control were morally tasteful, it's impossible. You can't control everything and make everyone equal in all respects.

Genetics is another factor that influences childs intelligence. Hey, that reminds me of another socialist, I forget, what was his name? Oh yeah, Adolf Hitler. He was into controlling everything so the world would be his idealist fantasy utopia as well.

Capitalism, with all the social nets of Socialism.

(This is since I can't edit my post, and just read a post above)

Hitler wasn't a socialist. He just called it that to make it more appealing to people.

Capitalism, with all the social nets of Socialism.

Social democracy, in other words (pre-Third Way, of course).

Vas.

I bet this bloke isn't even well off, hes probably just a hick who pretends hes rich to further enforce his Republican standing.

What about access to education? College money? The state of schools in the inner city compared to private schools? Aren't these all factors that influence the development of a child's intelligence and therefore make some people more/less inclined to suceed?

Anyways, all you spout is rhetoric.

Well Nazi, I appreciate you trying to get into a pissing contest as to who is/isn't rich, do you have to resort to such "rhetoric" to refute my statements? Please gain some maturity.

By your "bloke" comment I'm going to assume that you are not an American. I am, and WAS making my statements from that viewpoint. So you got the Republican part right. I am a Republican, not that I share all of their viewpoints/ideologies. Anyway, with regard to education, college money, and the state of public schools. IN the U.S., a capitalist country (for the moment), public schools are free through the 12th year. Public education in most of the U.S. is excellent, I am a product, and plenty of wealthy people, at least in my city go to public schools. When it comes to college, it is not provided free, and you're right; but our income taxes are not as high as many other nations. HOWEVER, if you have poor grades in school, are disadvantaged and wish to continue to college, there ARE what are called student loans to help you with this endeavor. And if you were an excellent to half decent student through the 12th year and are disadvantaged well there are plenty of scholarships and grants that will pay for all your school expenditures. What is important in a capitalist system is that it's citizens have the will to better themselves. This starts from an early age in school.

Socialism is good for those who like to blame others for their forced reactionary decision/actions, envy others who have been fortunate or worked hard to gain their possibly superior socioeconomic status in life (of course socialists believe these people just stole their position from them), believe that people who graduated from high school and work at Burger King, and one from medical school should be entitled to equal pay, and believe in a select few government officials driving fancy cars and living in mansions (living a capitalistic lifestyle in a socialist country) running their daily lives.

That is one hell of a run-on sentence. Oh, and :upyours:

Vas (who probably has a better job and earns more than you do).

Adolf Hitler purposefully drew together the Nationalistic element for reestablishment of Germany within the World stage as well as Socialist viewpoints concerning the worker voters before he came to power. After that he gave Business leaders many powers and didn't uphold the Worker's rights that he pledged to. He wasn't a socialist.

Oh and about genetics?

Firstly they have proven that somebody from a bad background can go to a good school and suceed, The Home Office studies inparticular have shown that as the standard of education rises in inner city schools (with the bulk of Labours new investment) that traditionally get bad grades, grades have risen.

And even if it were genetics, alot of Business is down to luck. Assuming that people from a well off family are more inclined to be more intelligent naturally than someone from a poor family is a very bigotted incorrect view to take.

But did I expect any different?

Yes, Social Democracy. But usually when I say that with the people I usually debate with, most of them start screaming, "Commie Pinko!"

I'm just cut off from a lot of the debate right now, so I have wandered by roleplaying self into the General forum to satisfy my addiction to political banter.

Here's my theory, not to go too far into flame-territory or anything, but...

I think most people who are pro-government, pro-taxation, pro-socialism, are people who've never had to pay taxes. Once your earnings start going to an administration you didn't vote for, enforcing policies they never made clear before gaining office, and being essentially wasted due to the standard government inefficiency, you start having second thoughts about the whole, "let's just give government all the power and wealth and trust that they'll share" thing.

That is one hell of a run-on sentence. Oh, and :upyours:

Vas (who probably has a better job and earns more than you do).

I don't work (I'm 16 and why should I?), but I don't deny either that my life is pretty pampered in terms of access to education and ability to pay Uni fees compared to others. But does this make me feel inherently better than them? Pretty much no.

Anyways what do you do 'vas' (whatever that is short for), something which gives rise to your ever burdgeoning ego and belief that you are better than others I suppose?

Here's my theory, not to go too far into flame-territory or anything, but...

I think most people who are pro-government, pro-taxation, pro-socialism, are people who've never had to pay taxes. Once your earnings start going to an administration you didn't vote for, enforcing policies they never made clear before gaining office, and being essentially wasted due to the standard government inefficiency, you start having second thoughts about the whole, "let's just give government all the power and wealth and trust that they'll share" thing.

As I have said before, my dad earns above 65k a year. He pays a hell of alot in taxes yet votes Lib Dem every election, if its the case that only 'people who dont pay taxes' want socialism, why does my dad want it when he pays a hell of alot in taxes?

I ask the person who makes the "experience" attack (Encountered it thousands of times before, slap it down in an instant) a simple question:

Have you died?

That is one hell of a run-on sentence. Oh, and :upyours:

Vas (who probably has a better job and earns more than you do).
Dischordiac,

I do not pretend to be a grammar teacher. I also do not check what I have written for correctness to minimize my errors. I do not have THAT MUCH time to waste on this board full of the envious and irrational people such as yourself. Sorry to have offended you. I'm glad you understood enough for you to tell me to go f*ck myself:-D

As I have said before, my dad earns above 65k a year. He pays a hell of alot in taxes yet votes Lib Dem every election, if its the case that only 'people who dont pay taxes' want socialism, why does my dad want it when he pays a hell of alot in taxes?
Why don't you ask him Nazi? It would interest me to hear his reasons. I thinnk it's probably because the Bank of Cyprus MIGHT (and I don't know) be government controlled. Therefore. More government control gives him more power? It's interesting to note that he has advanced quite a bit within his organization. Does the clerk at the window taking the money make as much as him? They would in an ideally socialist system.

(This is since I can't edit my post, and just read a post above)

Hitler wasn't a socialist. He just called it that to make it more appealing to people.
If we accept that Socialism means control of the means of production then yes he was (although in truth to some extent the means of production controled the government but that is true in all socialist governments). If socialism means state ownership of the means of production then he wasn't, although most socialist governments aren't socialist either. It would be fairer to say that he believed to socialist economics (state control of industry) but not socialist politics (individual rights).

I think that socialism is a better system. And so does a slight majority of NS by the look of it...seeing as the Reds (socialists) are in the lead in the poll.

As I have said before, my dad earns above 65k a year. He pays a hell of alot in taxes yet votes Lib Dem every election, if its the case that only 'people who dont pay taxes' want socialism, why does my dad want it when he pays a hell of alot in taxes?

I never said that 'only' people who don't pay taxes want socialism. Obviously, there are other people, who are merely confused, like your dad. But I stand by my claim that MOST who want socialism, especially on these forums, hasn't had to pay taxes.

But then again that's kind of an obvious statement, since most on these forums are too young to need to earn a living anyway.

YES COMRADES!

Socialism is winning, lets show the hicks and concentrators of wealth who the REAL power is. We stand up for everything that is good and noble, such as caring for people with less opportunities in life, and thus a worse life overall. You can't simply say its 'ALL DERE OWN FAULT!!!!!!'.

If into a black family in Inner City LA where your dad could hardly ever find a job and your mum struggled to care for you would it necessarily be your fault that you happened to be born into a family that has far less opportunities in terms of education at an early age/college as well as countless other areas such as healthcare would it be your fault? No.

And before you start going - "Your a benefit fraud!!!!", My dad is the head of Business Banking (handling of rich clients) in the bank of Cyprus. He earns a good wage (above 65k, in pounds), but is strongly socialist despite the fact he would be better off under a Conservative Government. And despite the advantages I have, I still remain a committed socialist as well.
Pretty much echoes my sentiments. I make a better than average wage and pay more taxes and that is ok by me.

Hitler was a lunatic interested only in his own power. He made strong alliances with business, basically leading to a semi-plutocracy within his dictatorship.

I never said that 'only' people who don't pay taxes want socialism. Obviously, there are other people, who are merely confused, like your dad. But I stand by my claim that MOST who want socialism, especially on these forums, hasn't had to pay taxes.

But then again that's kind of an obvious statement, since most on these forums are too young to need to earn a living anyway.

Dont insult my parents you ugly little shit - maybe his views represent the fact that not all people who pay a high proportion of tax are capitalist pigs. Its like he said about the tuition fees "Sure I don't like paying it - but if it means more of the poor can go, then its a matter of morality and whats right."

Go and lick Rush Limbaugh's arse and then let him finger you.

Hitler was a lunatic sure, but he rose to power in a democratic society, based on the national socialist party. Socialist.

Besides, in many socialist countries today there are strong allies with business. Hmm particularly the state-created businesses that get their startup money and pay half their profits to the government! (Imagine that. Now why would they be allies? Can't imagine.)

Trying to portray the national socialists as not-socialists is a common tactic, mirrored in any group where if you point out a bad element from that group, the rest of the group dissociates itself. "Oh, but they're not REAL Christians," a Catholic might say, thus excusing Christianity of the Protestants. It's like how if you say that "all americans are for the Iraq war," and then someone points at the anti-war factions, and then the response is, "Well, those aren't TRUE Americans, they're anti-Americans, so they don't count!"

But all sects of Christianity are Christian to me, just as all Americans are American, and all National Socialists, Socialists.

Dont insult my parents you ugly little shit - maybe his views represent the fact that not all people who pay a high proportion of tax are capitalist pigs. Its like he said about the tuition fees "Sure I don't like paying it - but if it means more of the poor can go, then its a matter of morality and whats right."

Go and lick Rush Limbaugh's arse and then let him finger you.

Ahh, there's nothing like a well-reasoned, rational, and coherently logical argument.

And that's just what that was- nothing like a well-reasoned, rational and coherently logical argument!

Dont insult my parents you ugly little shit - maybe his views represent the fact that not all people who pay a high proportion of tax are capitalist pigs. Its like he said about the tuition fees "Sure I don't like paying it - but if it means more of the poor can go, then its a matter of morality and whats right."

Go and lick Rush Limbaugh's arse and then let him finger you.
Tuition fees in the US go to professor and adminstrator salaries as well as construction and maintenance of infrastructure. Not help poor students go to school. Are those severe personal insults to Forum Feline required to make your point Nazi?

Tuition fees in the US go to professor and adminstrator salaries as well as construction and maintenance of infrastructure. Not help poor students go to school. Are those severe personal insults to Forum Feline required to make your point Nazi?

I am talking about the UK you moron. Could you get anymore stupid than already are?

By the way, I know Rush Limbaugh is a pretty influential guy, and he has a radio or TV show or something, and I even know judging by your context that he's right winged. However, I've never watched or listened to him. (Let alone do any of the kinky british gay sex items Nazi here suggested.:gundge)

Another thing, just because I say your dad is confused doesn't mean I'm insulting him. You were the one who brought him up as an example, I figured that would mean you'd be open to discussing him as an example. Come to think of it, you seem a bit confused yourself.

UK politics might be such that your dad is choosing the "lesser of two evils" or something. There's that kind of thing going on in America too.

i am a native born US citizen and i voted socialism

assuming of course that we are talking about the socialism of western europe not the psuedo communism of the failed warsaw bloc.

seems to me that while socialism has quite a few big problems, it gives it citizens the best deal. better education, better health care deal, better social safety net.

not that i have a huge problem with the capitalist system of the US. after all i am planning to get "rich" in the import business in the next couple years. its definitely easier to get started in business in the US.

Socialism all the way. The working class deserves control over their lives rather than taking orders from bosses.

Is that to say, 'bosses,' business owners and managers don't work, and are active oppressors of the working class?

I don't work (I'm 16 and why should I?), but I don't deny either that my life is pretty pampered in terms of access to education and ability to pay Uni fees compared to others. But does this make me feel inherently better than them? Pretty much no.

Anyways what do you do 'vas' (whatever that is short for), something which gives rise to your ever burdgeoning ego and belief that you are better than others I suppose?

What the fuck is your point, LibDem boy? I'm sick to the eye-teeth with the bullshit about communists being "jealous" of capitalists. I'm not fucking jealous of anyone, I've got a good job as a website editor, I could have an even better job earning more money, but my principles got in the way.

I'm an anarchist communist because I think a society without exploitation will be a more free and less crime ridden society. I don't think I'm better than anyone (OK, maybe chavs and the BNP), I was refuting an ignorant statement.

You are a trolling little kid, aren't you?

Vas.

Hitler was a lunatic sure, but he rose to power in a democratic society, based on the national socialist party. Socialist. Do you believe that the Austrian Liberal Party are actually liberals.

Besides, in many socialist countries today there are strong allies with business. Hmm particularly the state-created businesses that get their startup money and pay half their profits to the government! (Imagine that. Now why would they be allies? Can't imagine.)And that's why there not socialist countries.

Trying to portray the national socialists as not-socialists is a common tactic, mirrored in any group where if you point out a bad element from that group, the rest of the group dissociates itself. "Oh, but they're not REAL Christians," a Catholic might say, thus excusing Christianity of the Protestants. It's like how if you say that "all americans are for the Iraq war," and then someone points at the anti-war factions, and then the response is, "Well, those aren't TRUE Americans, they're anti-Americans, so they don't count!"
Please point to where the National Socialist goverment made any movement towards putting the means of production in the hands of the workers. A cursory knowledge of the history of National Socialism shows in was an offshoot of fascism, not socialism.
But all sects of Christianity are Christian to me, just as all Americans are American, and all National Socialists, Socialists.Don't you think it's better to define groups by what they believe, rather then what they call themselves?

Briefly, Socialism is a belief in spreading the riches of a country as equally as possible amoungst the population. This does not prevent individuals from excelling in the financial field. Capitalism is a belief in the profit motif. In most democratic countries there is a mixture of both. Otherwise there would be no progress, socially or economic.

Differences Between Real Socialists (RS) and National Socialists (NS)

1) As Holy Word pointed out the Nazis made little or no effort to make more buisnesses goverment run.

2) Although they did make it so that the rich eat with the poor and eat the same food, however they did little to bridge the poor-rich gap and many social historians have put forward the theory this was more to get the rich and the poor both used to army rations.

3) Hitler did give many of the poor food and jobs, however these were only available due to his plans of military domination.

4) RS are strongly opposed to most actions of war and are pacifists at heart, the NS planned to conquer all of Europe. The ideologies of imperialism are an anaethma to RS but to the NAZIs they were the basis of their ambitions.

5) Socialists preach tolerance and social equality. The NAZIs probably would not have come to power if it was not for their strongly anti-jewish policies and the disgusting ramblings of their leader Adolf Hitler in his bigoted sprawl of a book Mein Kamph. The NAZIs also of course initiated the Holocaust which RS (who are opposed to the states killing it's citizens ever for any purpose or reason) were disgusted by.

6) Real Socialists are pro-democracy and believe who the people want in power should be there. The NS killed opposition parties.

7) Real Socialists believe in equal rights for homosexuals, they believe a person's body is their own and should be used however the person wishes (including prostitution). The NAZIs killed thousands of homosexuals and prostitutes during the holocaust.

8) Real Socialists believe healthcare is important and should be free, that none should be left to die unless they want it. They believe that there should be no discrimination between who is helped and who not. The NAZIs cleared the mental asylums of the mentaly diabled and systematicaly shot them. They claimed they were "Mercy killings".

So bearing this in mind if I called myself a mongoose would you believe I was one?

Also Marx said in the Manifesto that in order to achieve equality you can't let nationalism get in your way. You're welcome to dispute that Marxism isn't the brand of socialism that you're talking about, but that's what it said in the Manifesto, which is why the Nazis weren't socialist.

As far as governments being more accountable than businesses, they are. Who do you think pays for most of the funds of a politician's campaign? Secondly, simply because someone can be held accountable for their actions doesn't mean that they will be. To paraphrase Noam Chomsky: "The US has terrific democratic structure, it just doesn't function."

I voted socialism simply because I believe it's a better ideal - even though it rarely works in practice (mainly, I believe, due to factors outside of anyone's control).

I still can't believe so many people believe all the shit propaganda spread about it - "Oh noes! They want equality for all! THE BASTARDS!"

And since some people seem to think the entire basis of socialism revolves around cutting your pay until it's the same as your neighbour's - go and read something left wing before you open your mouths - otherwise you just sound moronic and uninformed.

I voted socialism simply because I believe it's a better ideal - even though it rarely works in practice (mainly, I believe, due to factors outside of anyone's control)..

Like human greed...


I still can't believe so many people believe all the shit propaganda spread about it - "Oh noes! They want equality for all! THE BASTARDS!"
.

You can thank Thatcher and Reagan for that one, the Eighties reincarnated the 50s "Greed is Good" attitude.

And since some people seem to think the entire basis of socialism revolves around cutting your pay until it's the same as your neighbour's - go and read something left wing before you open your mouths - otherwise you just sound moronic and uninformed.

I think alot of people prefer to sound moronic and uninformed, perhaps because that and greed is all the right wing is built on.

I think alot of people prefer to sound moronic and uninformed, perhaps because that and greed is all the right wing is built on.
Because trade unions are so selfless......

If desiring more comfort is greed then I'm greedy. It beats slavery and sacrifice.

Two points.

'All Nazis are socialists'. If this is true, it means nothing, since clearly the converse - 'all socialists are Nazis' does not follow.

Two, working in a meat-packing plant last summer, being a student, I did not need to have to pay taxes. But I did. This is because socialism rocks.

That is all.

Two points.

'All Nazis are socialists'. If this is true, it means nothing, since clearly the converse - 'all socialists are Nazis' does not follow.

All parrots are birds but not all birds are parrots.

Because trade unions are so selfless......

If desiring more comfort is greed then I'm greedy. It beats slavery and sacrifice.So in your just society you'd keep your wealth by banning collective bargaining.

So in your just society you'd keep your wealth by banning collective bargaining.
No. I was pointing out that socialists are greedy too.

I prefer a style of economics which uses the best parts of both theories. See Sweden.

Because trade unions are so selfless......

If desiring more comfort is greed then I'm greedy. It beats slavery and sacrifice.

Desiring a fair share rather than submitting to someone else's greed is human nature. It's not greedy to resent someone skimming all the extra value from your work.

Vas.

No. I was pointing out that socialists are greedy too.

Maybe your parents didn't explain this to you, but greed isn't wanting your fair share. Maybe at your birthday party, your parents didn't object to you taking the entire birthday cake into your room and told you the guests who complained were the greedy ones. However, most children are taught that it's fair to share and everyone should get an equal slice of birthday cake and it's greedy to want more than anyone else and perfectly justifiable if you complain because your piece is clearly smaller.

Vas.

Maybe your parents didn't explain this to you, but greed isn't wanting your fair share. Maybe at your birthday party, your parents didn't object to you taking the entire birthday cake into your room and told you the guests who complained were the greedy ones. However, most children are taught that it's fair to share and everyone should get an equal slice of birthday cake and it's greedy to want more than anyone else and perfectly justifiable if you complain because your piece is clearly smaller.
But socialists are greedy too. Look at trade unions. That was the point I was making.

But socialists are greedy too. Look at trade unions. That was the point I was making.

So? Socialism is about not being denied the full product of your (or society's) labor by a wealthy few. That is, in a sense, greed, but it is really just defending your freedom.

But socialists are greedy too. Look at trade unions. That was the point I was making.

*Looks in the mirror - I'm a member of two unions.* Not usually, claims for more money are normally based on increased profits or increased cost of living. As I said, a fair share.

Vas.

*sigh* Greed is not a product of any particular economic system. If people are greedy they will be greedy in a free world or a socialist one. If they are not then they will not be in socialism or a free world. Communes appeal to the greed of workers just as much as employment does, or will people flock to voluntary impoverishment?

*sigh* Greed is not a product of any particular economic system.

Didn't say it was. It is, however, promoted by a system that rewards individual achievement over co-operation. People adapt to a system that gives you more if you do better than your fellow rather than work together with your colleagues to do better still.

If people are greedy they will be greedy in a free world or a socialist one. If they are not then they will not be in socialism or a free world. Communes appeal to the greed of workers just as much as employment does, or will people flock to voluntary impoverishment?

No, they don't, because, while few will opt for impoverishment (though some will, look at the primitivists in their trees), few expect a commune will make one monetarily richer. However, it will provide a better standard of living, shorter work hours, less stress, access to more common goods through increased public collections, etc. It's not greedy to want to live in a society free from bosses and the daily grind and social crime, etc.

I have been in the position where I had a choice between a promotion and more money and resigning and sticking to my principles. I opted for the latter and used up all my savings in the subsequent months as I sought a new job. I want to create a better world because I want to live in a better world, not for any personal gain. I will acknowledge that it's a somewhat selfish wish, but it's not greedy.

Vas.

Do you believe that the Austrian Liberal Party are actually liberals.

No. Nor do I think Democrats are democratic, liberals are liberal, conservatives conservative. But a person calls themselves something, I am forced to go on that basis. I can't second-guess everyone by how 'truly' they are whatever they say they are.



Please point to where the National Socialist goverment made any movement towards putting the means of production in the hands of the workers. A cursory knowledge of the history of National Socialism shows in was an offshoot of fascism, not socialism.

Fascism, socialism. It's hard to see how they are really different. Both have state control or strong influence over corporations. And I don't define a socialist viewpoint as one that aims to put production in the hands of the workers. If you call yourself a socialist, I go along with it. See above where I don't try to label everyone based on how Truly For Sure Bona Fide Socialist they are. Just like I don't try to judge people based on how Truly OMG Amazingly Genuine Christians they are.



Don't you think it's better to define groups by what they believe, rather then what they call themselves?

Sure. But you define groups by what you believe they believe. For instance, you define socialist as "aiming to put the means of production in the hands of the worker." Therefore, according to your belief, you will determine whether someone is socialist or not. You have effectively made yourself the judge of who they are, and so even if they say they are socialist, you can always find a good excuse to show how they're NOT socialist, if perhaps you think they give the rest of socialists a bad name.

I define a socialist as one who practices, or claims to practice, a form of socialism.

Differences Between Real Socialists (RS) and National Socialists (NS)

1) As Holy Word pointed out the Nazis made little or no effort to make more buisnesses goverment run.

2) Although they did make it so that the rich eat with the poor and eat the same food, however they did little to bridge the poor-rich gap and many social historians have put forward the theory this was more to get the rich and the poor both used to army rations.

3) Hitler did give many of the poor food and jobs, however these were only available due to his plans of military domination.

4) RS are strongly opposed to most actions of war and are pacifists at heart, the NS planned to conquer all of Europe. The ideologies of imperialism are an anaethma to RS but to the NAZIs they were the basis of their ambitions.

5) Socialists preach tolerance and social equality. The NAZIs probably would not have come to power if it was not for their strongly anti-jewish policies and the disgusting ramblings of their leader Adolf Hitler in his bigoted sprawl of a book Mein Kamph. The NAZIs also of course initiated the Holocaust which RS (who are opposed to the states killing it's citizens ever for any purpose or reason) were disgusted by.

6) Real Socialists are pro-democracy and believe who the people want in power should be there. The NS killed opposition parties.

7) Real Socialists believe in equal rights for homosexuals, they believe a person's body is their own and should be used however the person wishes (including prostitution). The NAZIs killed thousands of homosexuals and prostitutes during the holocaust.

8) Real Socialists believe healthcare is important and should be free, that none should be left to die unless they want it. They believe that there should be no discrimination between who is helped and who not. The NAZIs cleared the mental asylums of the mentaly diabled and systematicaly shot them. They claimed they were "Mercy killings".

So bearing this in mind if I called myself a mongoose would you believe I was one?

They didn't have all businesses government-run. And communist Russia didn't have (insert Marxist Utopian wet dream here). Your point? Not all parties, governments or nations accomplish what they claim to set out to accomplish.

You assume every socialist practices what he preaches. What, no hypocrite socialists, anywhere? Or are they also "not really socialists," maybe we should give them another name to distance ourselves from them.

Unfortunately, you are attempting to define a socialist's nature by your own cute checklist. A socialist does this, a socialist does that, blah blah blah. That's about as short sighted as it gets. I might as well say, a Priest doesn't molest little boys, therefore none of the priest's who've molested little boys were actually priests. Therefore no Priest has ever molested a little boy! Yay!

As for the mongoose thing, well. It's not the same. A political belief system, or any belief for that matter, is not a hard, concrete, testable fact. It is possible to prove that you are not a mongoose. It is impossible to prove someone adheres or not to a certain value system. Oh, you can show that they don't SHOW adherence to it. But a belief system is a complicated thing.

And if you think the hypocrisy of preaching social equality and Jew-hating is too much for any "real" socialist to commit, just remember that "social equality" doesn't include animals. And as you pointed out the propaganda, it was a common belief that the Jews were not even quite human, and therefore social equality wouldn't apply.

IN fact, the nazis used the simple mass control technique redefining the "real" from the "false," wheat and chaff, human and convinient enemy; getting people to distance themselves from other people, by reclassifying definitions. How nice it must be to live in a world where no socialists are nazis, no priests child molestors and no Jews human.

Well said SB. If we accept the defintion that socialists are only those who have worker ownership of the means of production, then I cannot think of a socialist nation ever. Even the socialist paradise of Cuba has ownership in the hands of the government, not the workers. While I prefer self-identification as the criteria (and the Austrian Liberal party self indentifies as consevatives, not liberals) for classsifying groups. we should also not ignore most common usage and make note when we are not using the most common usage. The most common usage (these days, this changes) considers worker ownership of the means of production communist and considers socialist to mean the attitudes held by the current crop of Social Democrats (safety net, government control of major industries and restrictions on abuse by other industries, strong labor rights and such). The way the question is asked however is traditional for distingushing between private ownership of industry versus worker/government ownership of industry, so it is reasonable for one to answer the original question in terms of Capitalism versus Communism but since the question does not make clear what meaning of socialism is used and the majority of those posting here have chosen to use the SD standard, the SD definition should be taken as the default one when iot isn't clear which defintion is being used.

I'll type it slowly...

NO... IT... IS... NOT! What the fuck do they teach Americans in school? Socialism is an economic theory, mmkay? It's matched with political theories to create a system, mmmkya? You're talking about State socialism, mmkay? That's only one form of socialism, mmmkay? Libertarian socialism is anarchism, which has no government, mmmkay? Ignorance is bad, mmmkay?

Vas.

Agreed. Also, In the USA the government is partially -- but significantly -- controlled by corporations. In all governments the government/economic system difference gets a bit blurred.

We in the USA had been tending to a hybrid economy; Socialism and Capitalism can be made to work together. Happens in several Euro countries. Our current corrupt government is trying to destroy that balance. So even though I prefer a balance of the two, to pull back to the compromise I vote Socialism

If we accept the defintion that socialists are only those who have worker ownership of the means of production, then I cannot think of a socialist nation ever.
That's because there hasn't been. The nearest has been Spain for a brief period during the Spanish Civil War, and Russia before the Bolsheviks launched their counter revolution.

Capitalism.

I acknowledge that there are certain shortcomings in Capitalism, but since the only alternative is collectivism, which causes this...

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF

To compare against other megamurderers...
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.FIG1.GIF

Capitalism.

I acknowledge that there are certain shortcomings in Capitalism, but since the only alternative is collectivism, which causes this...

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF

To compare against other megamurderers...
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.FIG1.GIF
Ummm Socialism is NOT Communism.

All forms of collectivist governments are inherently evil. Read Ayn Rand's and Milton Friedman's works.

All forms of collectivist governments are inherently evil. Read Ayn Rand's and Milton Friedman's works.

I agree, but anarcho-communism, my version, at least, isn't collectivist.

All forms of collectivist governments are inherently evil. Read Ayn Rand's and Milton Friedman's works.
Capitalism is based on greed and is far more evil than socialism. The US is a classic example.

Capitalism is based on greed and is far more evil than socialism. The US is a classic example.

Capitalism is based on good economic theory.

A political or economic theory is usually not inherently EVIL. Sheesh, you and Bush both, everything is either "good" or "evil."

Capitalism is based on good economic theory.

A political or economic theory is usually not inherently EVIL. Sheesh, you and Bush both, everything is either "good" or "evil."
I didn't start the EVIL theory.....

Tyrandis stated: "All forms of collectivist governments are inherently evil."

I was commenting otherwise. In regards to capitalism, while in theory it creates wealth, it also fosters greed which is in itself evil.

All forms of collectivist governments are inherently evil. Read Ayn Rand's and Milton Friedman's works.

Oh god, no thanks. As for anything being "evil", sheesh, can you think of any other useless terms wrapped up in religiousity to add to the debate?

Vas.

as a socialist i vote for ... socialism because i don't see why one has to take 2 hardworking jobs just to survive and another one doesn't need to work because his parents were rich. I am not saying we should take the money from the rich people's bankaccounts and give it to the poor people, but i am saying that it is fair to give those with a high income a higher taxrate and to provide social security to those that need it. I also believe everyone should receive 'free' education and full healthcare (free as in payed with our taxmoney). Economic wealth isn't the wealth of the nation: a country can have huge economic wealth, but if all that wealth is concentrated in a small part of the population, then the wealth of the nation isn't really high.

I myself am on the good side of the curtain as my parents earn about 5000 euro a month (or 6000 dollar a month) after they payed somewhere around 48 percent taxes, which will be used to provide medical healthcare to all, to give a decent live to those that don't have a job, to support those that have retired and to make sure (allmost) anyone can follow the education they want. I myself went to one of the best schools in the area and all my parents had to pay for were my books and some rare optional trips. Now I am spending at least 5 years at university (and i'm not planning to stop after i received my 'master' (stupid bama)). this time my parents have to buy my books and they have to pay something around 450 euro a year (students in families with a low income/familiemember have to pay 80 euro).

Capitalism is based on greed
No it isn't. It's based on the right to produce and trade goods and services without coercive interference. If people choose to use their freedom for selfish reasons then that's greed (or simple obvious rational self interest), if they choose to use their freedom to donate all their money to charity then that's capitalism too.

If people are greedy then they'll be greedy under socialism too. In capitalism greedy people aquire wealth by providing cheap and quality goods and services to their customers. In socialism they aquire wealth via political power and coercive taxation.

No it isn't. It's based on the right to produce and trade goods and services without coercive interference. If people choose to use their freedom for selfish reasons then that's greed (or simple obvious rational self interest), if they choose to use their freedom to donate all their money to charity then that's capitalism too.

If people are greedy then they'll be greedy under socialism too. In capitalism greedy people aquire wealth by providing cheap and quality goods and services to their customers. In socialism they aquire wealth via political power and coercive taxation.

I point you to the history of capitalism and unions and ask you, who used coercion to achieve wealth? Who hired armed gangs to attack striking workers? Who bought politicians to boost their power and business freedom?

Look at the case of Alexander Berkman and how he was convicted, not just of the act he acknowledge carrying out, but also on trumped up charges and punished far beyond the legal limit, by judges and police bought by Carnegie and Frick, who had hired Pinkertons to attack the striking workers.

Vas.

It's true that while people may be greedy under both capitalism and socialism, they're much more likely to be so under capitalism, since it would be be easier to do so.

I point you to the history of capitalism and unions and ask you, who used coercion to achieve wealth? .... Who bought politicians to boost their power ....
Both.

Now I point you to the history of capitalism and communism and ask you who murdered their own people by the millions? Margaret Thatcher or Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung?

The argument was about greed. There's no point comparing capitalism with devils to communism with angels. It doesn't work that way. You have to take people as they are, greedy or whatever, and compare real free markets with real communism. Otherwise you're being unscientific.

It's true that while people may be greedy under both capitalism and socialism, they're much more likely to be so under capitalism, since it would be be easier to do so.
What does that mean?

In fact, I vote for eco-economics.
Me too. Bring on the werteswandel!

Both.

Now I point you to the history of capitalism and communism and ask you who murdered their own people by the millions? Margaret Thatcher or Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung?

The argument was about greed. There's no point comparing capitalism with devils to communism with angels. It doesn't work that way. You have to take people as they are, greedy or whatever, and compare real free markets with real communism. Otherwise you're being unscientific.

I'm an anarchist, I regard the state and capitalism to be twin evils. State systems promote and reward greed for political power, capitalist systems promote and reward greed for financial gain. Anarchist systems, without either political hierarchy or capitalism, would promote and reward co-operation and solidarity. Humans adapt to the system in which they are.

Vas.

I'm an anarchist, I regard the state and capitalism to be twin evils. State systems promote and reward greed for political power, capitalist systems promote and reward greed for financial gain. Anarchist systems, without either political hierarchy or capitalism, would promote and reward co-operation and solidarity. Humans adapt to the system in which they are.

greedy = seeks wealth
promote and reward = aquire wealth (or whatever else it is you seek)

"Under capitalism greed is rewarded" = "Under capitalism those who seek wealth will aquire wealth."

No knowledge is contained in that statement. Those who occupy themselves in seeking wealth will do what it takes in that system to aquire wealth. All systems reward greed since greed is simply the seeking of rewards.

greedy = seeks wealth
promote and reward = aquire wealth (or whatever else it is you seek)

"Under capitalism greed is rewarded" = "Under capitalism those who seek wealth will aquire wealth."

No knowledge is contained in that statement. Those who occupy themselves in seeking wealth will do what it takes in that system to aquire wealth. All systems reward greed since greed is simply the seeking of rewards.

Define wealth (for therein is the rub).

Vas.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that both systems, in their purest forms, are true evil. Like communism (mentioned earlier), they are a good idea on paper, but when the complexities of human nature are added, just don't work out in practice. The real world typically needs a balance of these systems. Even the U.S. doesn't have a pure capitalist system, although since the deregulation instated by Reagan in the '80s, they're headed for it. I believe very few countries can successfully keep a pure version of any system for any length of time without failing - unless they are a country comprised of truly exceptional people who don't have to be told to care about other people over their own excessive economic furtherment.

...truly exceptional people who don't have to be told to care about other people over their own excessive economic furtherment.

Maybe it's the people I know, but, for me, that describes the majority of people I know now and I've known through my whole life.

Vas.

Even the U.S. doesn't have a pure capitalist system, although since the deregulation instated by Reagan in the '80s, they're headed for it.
No they aren't.

truly exceptional people who don't have to be told to care about other people over their own excessive economic furtherment.
It's a democracy. They're "telling" themselves! Why would they vote to force themselves to do what they wouldn't do voluntarily? To put it another way, doesn't the fact that virtually everyone is in favour of the welfare state prove that it's unnecessary?

Define wealth (for therein is the rub).

For the purposes of this debate wealth is whatever is the object of alleged "greed".

No they aren't.

It's a democracy. They're "telling" themselves! Why would they vote to force themselves to do what they wouldn't do voluntarily? To put it another way, doesn't the fact that virtually everyone is in favour of the welfare state prove that it's unnecessary?

Well, more so than they were before, which is scary enough... but that wasn't my point. I meant simply that none of these systems are better because none of them work alone.

If one more person uses 'Communism' (inverted commas because China was included in the argument and China is NOT FUCKING COMMUNIST! Grrr... can't people see beyond shallow lables anymore? Or is that only for when it's convienient?), in this debate about Capitalism vs SOCIALSM, I swear I will go on some form of murderous rampage.

I also have to point out how amusing it is that only the right-wingers amongst everyone here seem to be making to idiotic claims (using 'evil' to describe a, vaguely defined at best, system) and moronic insults (Oh wow, you called me a 'stupid communist'. That's insulting because... well, um, it's actual not. It makes you look like a bit of a twat, to be honest).

Yes, I am left wing. If you don't like it, get the hell off a forum that's all about alternate views, you stupid pillock. There are plenty of forums out there where you can ban someone for even suggesting that maybe people should encourage empathy to other people. There are boards where you can all sit around with raging hard-ons just thinking about how superior you are to all us deluded socialists. But if you're going to come here, where you're expected to discuss things like something resembling an intelligent person, at least bring some fucking points of discussion with you. Oh, and learn the difference between 'Communist' and 'Socialist'.

Blah, this reminds me of why I always assume the worst about people. It's like arguing with children still stuck in the egocentric stage of development. :rolleyes:

learn the difference between 'Communist' and 'Socialist'.

And between free markets and mercantilism.

I'm an anarchist, I regard the state and capitalism to be twin evils. State systems promote and reward greed for political power, capitalist systems promote and reward greed for financial gain.
And as an anarchist, I regard the state and any form of collectivism (which include, but is not limited to: socialism, communism, fascism, and syndicalism) as evils. The state is a self-perpetuating coercive monopoly on force, law, and justice. Collectivism of any sort promotes and rewards the minorities in power or need (even in so-called anarchist system) at the expense of the rest.

And it seems, as was pointed out in yesterday's Mises.org daily article:
" As Joseph Sobran put it, ' 'Need' now means wanting someone else's money. 'Greed' means wanting to keep your own. And 'Compassion' is when a politician arranges the transfer.' "

Regardless of anyone's whining to the contrary, all collectivist systems are inherently redistributive for wealth.

I agree, but anarcho-communism, my version, at least, isn't collectivist.

Communism, including "anarcho-communism" is collectivist-no matter what you whine about.

Notice the root: commune.

If one more person uses 'Communism' (inverted commas because China was included in the argument and China is NOT FUCKING COMMUNIST! Grrr... can't people see beyond shallow lables anymore? Or is that only for when it's convienient?), in this debate about Capitalism vs SOCIALSM, I swear I will go on some form of murderous rampage.

I also have to point out how amusing it is that only the right-wingers amongst everyone here seem to be making to idiotic claims (using 'evil' to describe a, vaguely defined at best, system) and moronic insults (Oh wow, you called me a 'stupid communist'. That's insulting because... well, um, it's actual not. It makes you look like a bit of a twat, to be honest).

Yes, I am left wing. If you don't like it, get the hell off a forum that's all about alternate views, you stupid pillock. There are plenty of forums out there where you can ban someone for even suggesting that maybe people should encourage empathy to other people. There are boards where you can all sit around with raging hard-ons just thinking about how superior you are to all us deluded socialists. But if you're going to come here, where you're expected to discuss things like something resembling an intelligent person, at least bring some fucking points of discussion with you. Oh, and learn the difference between 'Communist' and 'Socialist'.

Blah, this reminds me of why I always assume the worst about people. It's like arguing with children still stuck in the egocentric stage of development. :rolleyes:

So what intelligent point of discussion did you bring with you? I can understand your lack of understanding, but you didn't even bother to add anything constructive. I'm not right-wing by suggesting a middle-point is best and I used "evil" because it's a simple word that people understand (which you didn't). The most extreme functionality of any of these systems is "not good" for the most part and the more economically successful countries have used a balance of them.

And as an anarchist, I regard the state and any form of collectivism (which include, but is not limited to: socialism, communism, fascism, and syndicalism) as evils. The state is a self-perpetuating coercive monopoly on force, law, and justice. Collectivism of any sort promotes and rewards the minorities in power or need (even in so-called anarchist system) at the expense of the rest.
So, under your proposed system, would you allow people to keep wealth they have currently gained? Considering you think it's unjust at the moment.

I point you to the history of capitalism and unions and ask you, who used coercion to achieve wealth?
Government cronies.

Who hired armed gangs to attack striking workers?
The government.

Who bought politicians to boost their power and business freedom?
Who had to defend themselves from the corrupt politicians?

Look at the case of Alexander Berkman and how he was convicted, not just of the act he acknowledge carrying out, but also on trumped up charges and punished far beyond the legal limit, by judges and police bought by Carnegie and Frick, who had hired Pinkertons to attack the striking workers.
Look at Vanderbilt, who was told by Bronx aldermen to pay them or his rail line would never be allowed through the Bronx.

Hint: it's the government, stupid.

BAAWA - any form of collectivism is evil? So, people voluntarily coming together in order to rpoduce something is evil? Surely a line has to be drawn?

Hint: insulting intelligent people who happen to disagree with you ain't the best policy, honey.

So, under your proposed system, would you allow people to keep wealth they have currently gained? Considering you think it's unjust at the moment.

1. Yes.
2. I don't think it's unjust except for the "wealth" gained as from governmental redistribution schemes.

Unoppressed People, yes, 'twas a rant. Mainly because I have to deal daily with people using China as an example of why 'Communism' doesn't work. That just pisses me off, and now I have a very short fuse when I see that comparison come up.

Now, I *could* claim it was meant to be an aside; a tangent not *meant* to add anything to the discussion. But that would be moronic, and I'll just admit that in my 'Oh dear lord, more China -> Communist .'. Communist = bad' induced raged, I acted like a hypocrite.

I did however bring my points to the discussion earlier. And see, I'm also willing to admit when I do something stupid. Which is more conductive to intelligent conversation than if I were just to say "Shut up, person who disagrees".

1. Yes.So, under your system how would there be social mobility?
2. I don't think it's unjust except for the "wealth" gained as from governmental redistribution schemes.So if those schemes were abolished what precisely is your problem with the state?

BAAWA - any form of collectivism is evil?
Yes.

So, people voluntarily coming together in order to rpoduce something is evil?
That isn't collectivism.

Hint: insulting intelligent people who happen to disagree with you ain't the best policy, honey.
Hint: I don't care.

So, under your system how would there be social mobility?

Same as there is now.

So if those schemes were abolished (redistribution of wealth) what precisely is your problem with the state?
That it is a self-perpetuating coercive monopoly with no philosophical justification, for starters.

Seeing as I'm a Marxist/Leninist with Trotskyite leanings, I voted socialist. I think one or two people here might be able to decipher that. Basically, I support Marx's vision, with a bit of practical Leninism(NOT--I stress--NOT the dictatorship of the proletariat as practiced). Add to that Trotsky's continued conviction that a world wide revolution is necessary for the survival of any one socialist nation, and that's about where I stand.

Here's a few definitions, for you:

Democratic Socialist; A person/party who supports using limited socialism to make capitalism as bearable as possible for the lower class.

Socialism; An economic system that is a cross between capitalism and true communism. It is often, and incorrectly, assumed to synonymous with communism, but is more correctly used to describe the transition to communism.

Communism; a government where the means of production are owned by the workers. Ideally, the government must be democratic.

Marxism; the basis for most current communist theory. Marxism calls communism inevitable when capitalism has outgrown its usefulness. Communism is the current end-state, though Marx's dialectic materialism suggests that another, better system of social structure will be found later. Marx believed that true communism would have no government, or currency. He also believed in internationalism and created labor economic theory.

By these definitions, all current and past 'communist' states were all socialist, with most being national socialist, working toward the interests of their own people, even at the cost of the international working community. Cuba in particular can be said to be a true socialist state, due to its continued promotion of social justice in other nations, whereas North Korea's extreme isolationism is an excellent example of national socialism.

Incidentally, if I may segue back into NS issues, support the UN proposal, 'International Maximum Wage.' (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=340896)

Seeing as I'm a Marxist/Leninist with Trotskyite leanings,Marxism and Leninism/Trotskyism are not compatible. See http://redaction.org/open/contents.html

Hitler was a lunatic sure, but he rose to power in a democratic society, based on the national socialist party. Socialist.

Besides, in many socialist countries today there are strong allies with business. Hmm particularly the state-created businesses that get their startup money and pay half their profits to the government! (Imagine that. Now why would they be allies? Can't imagine.)

Trying to portray the national socialists as not-socialists is a common tactic, mirrored in any group where if you point out a bad element from that group, the rest of the group dissociates itself. "Oh, but they're not REAL Christians," a Catholic might say, thus excusing Christianity of the Protestants. It's like how if you say that "all americans are for the Iraq war," and then someone points at the anti-war factions, and then the response is, "Well, those aren't TRUE Americans, they're anti-Americans, so they don't count!"

But all sects of Christianity are Christian to me, just as all Americans are American, and all National Socialists, Socialists.


So you're saying the NAzi's were socialists? I'd like to see some evidence!!

Here's a few definitions, for you:
EXCELLENT! Thank you for that.

Shaed - thank you too for recognizing your... um, aside. =)

The Democratic Socialist idea is where I was stabbing at in my attempt to be unaffirming and not support nor defend either side. However, maybe the fact that both sides have strong arguments represent this ideal.

BAAWA - your theory is interesting... you seem to suggest a system where you start at zero, but maintain zero. This unfortunately requires an entire economic failure or the ability to start from scratch to begin this system, but assuming that happens, how is a system like this maintained? What keeps the system recursive and stops it from either blossoming into one of these other systems, or falling into unrecoverable debt ^in a world economy^?

its easy to make arguements when you set up all the parameters in your favor.
capitalism is *THIS* so its evil
socialism is *THIS* so its evil
communism is *THIS* so its evil
anarchism is *THIS* so its evil

there is no *THIS* in the world.

in the world there are socialist countries that allow, even encourage, private enterprise. most of the countries of western europe are this way. some more, some less. the countries of eastern europe are working towards it.

they use tax and labor laws to even out the distribution of wealth and to promote the welfare of their citizens. are the perfect at it? hell no. but they try.

in the united states we are capitalist. we encourage business and believe that more wealth in general means more wealth for the average guy.

we use tax and labor laws to even out the disparity between rich and poor and to promote the welfare of our citizens. we do it to a much smaller extent than the socialist countries do. are we perfect at it? hell no, but we try.

communism has been tried at the state level only as a sham. vile dictatorships forcing collectivization of workers is not communism. the workers never had control of the means of production not of the fruits of their labor

anarchism has never been tried on a state level. we can only guess that it woudl be good or bad. in reality, if it were ever tried, it would turn out different from what anyone theorizes because people are people not theories. maybe it would work maybe not. who's to say until its tried.

the rich do better in the US, the poor do better in western europe, the middle class is in about the same boat in both. (differences yes, but with about the same standard of living and education)

So, under your proposed system, would you allow people to keep wealth they have currently gained? Considering you think it's unjust at the moment.

It depends on what you mean by wealth. I'm in favour of a non-monetary system, so financial wealth would disappear (which happens anyway in ultra-inflationary crises). I'm in favour of worker appropriation of the means of production, so capitalists would lose their holdings (factory or land) and share-holders would lose the value of their shares. Other than that, the wealthy can keep their jewels and fur-coats and hide in their big houses and live off scraps, or they can join the commune.

Vas.

What does that mean?

First off, I disagree with your definition of "greed" as it appears earlier in the thread. Greed is not simply people being able to keep what they have, it also means they will do whatever it takes to acquire more. Now, there are a couple of reasons that there will be more greed under capitalism.
First, there will most likely not be organized groups of people to fight against their greed. Under socialism, there would be labor unions and the like, under capitalism there wouldn't be. Furthermore, under capitalism there has to be a certain level of unemployment in order for business owners to make a profit. This isn't true under socialism. Lastly, greed will be more prevalent because the capitalist system in itself does not encourage empathy for your fellow man. Certainly capitalists have shown some empathy, but socialism requires some level of it.

Communism; a government where the means of production are owned by the workers. Ideally, the government must be democratic.

Bloody Trots. Communism is, like socialism, an economic theory, NOT a form of government. Anarchist Communism proves that.

Vas.

For the purposes of this debate wealth is whatever is the object of alleged "greed".

Puleez, dodge the question why don't you.

You presumably know full well that wealth is a comparative phenomenon. An objective measure of wealth is impossible, a nomad farmer in the Sahara might be wealthy if he has three cows and a goat, while that would be extreme poverty in Ireland and meaningless in New York.

So, the only possible definition of wealth is: having more items of accepted value than your fellows. I'm wealthier than you if I've got two cows and you only have one and we both regard cows as items of value. Equally, I'm wealthier than you if my car was more expensive than yours and we both regard cars as being items of value. In a market economy, it all comes down to cash price.

So, greed is seeking wealth - in other words greed is seeking to have more than the people around you. Socialism/communism, on the other hand, are the exact opposite, aiming to redistribute wealth so that everyone has access to an equal share.

Vas.

Capitalism is based on greed and is far more evil than socialism. The US is a classic example.

You sir, are a retard.

The United States of America has the world's largest, strongest economy.

On the other hand, your beloved Canada is bogged down in quasi-socialistic policies.

I'll make sure to laugh at your funeral when you can't get that heart surgery in time because of massive waiting lists in Canada's healthcare system.

Ah yes, communist morality. Greed is bad, theft is good!

In actuality it all stems from class conflict... but more specifically, envy. The workers of Russia, witnessing the nobility and all their wealth, wanted it for themselves. It's no coincidence that most communists have a lack, not abundance, of Things. They want to fill their lack by pounding on the heartstring of what we might call, enforced charity.

Communism will never work, but people who follow that principle, and use it to "redistribute the wealth" by robbing the rich and giving to the poor - that works. You call that "corrupted" communism, but I see that as the perfection, the end result, the epitome of what communism is - robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. You have a Robin Hood complex. Thus you neccessarily have to justify it by disregarding the WORK and EFFORT the rich in question went through to get it.

That's why you disregard all bosses as evil, all employers as greedy, as anyone more successful than you as having arrived there by sheer accident or sin. Right! Because only the unemployed work. Only the poor are virtuous. Anyone with wealth is OMG EVIL. Wealth is, in fact, part of the Axis of Evil! Let's declare war on wealth!

...in the world there are socialist countries that allow, even encourage, private enterprise. most of the countries of western europe are this way. some more, some less. the countries of eastern europe are working towards it.

they use tax and labor laws to even out the distribution of wealth and to promote the welfare of their citizens. are the perfect at it? hell no. but they try.

in the united states we are capitalist. we encourage business and believe that more wealth in general means more wealth for the average guy.

we use tax and labor laws to even out the disparity between rich and poor and to promote the welfare of our citizens. we do it to a much smaller extent than the socialist countries do. are we perfect at it? hell no, but we try.

...

the rich do better in the US, the poor do better in western europe, the middle class is in about the same boat in both. (differences yes, but with about the same standard of living and education)

I have to say, Ashmoria, well put. I can already see the flak coming at you for it from some of the others, but I think it was well said. It's an interesting complement to what I was getting at as far as a balance of no extreme form of any econmic structure (or its accompanying governing influence).

I have to say, Ashmoria, well put. I can already see the flak coming at you for it from some of the others, but I think it was well said. It's an interesting complement to what I was getting at as far as a balance of no extreme form of any econmic structure (or its accompanying governing influence).
thank you UN

there is no pure form of anything in human society eh? we are messy people trying to find a balance in the world.

After taking thePolitical Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org) test, I was found to be further right-wing than Margaret Thatcher.
Needless to say, I openly support Capitalism. If people aren't willing to work for their money, they shouldn't be entitled to that money. And that's why, if the 11+ exams were reintroduced in schools, after a few years all the cleverer people would get the best jobs and therefore be the richest, so we could abolish the NHS, state-run education and the Welfare State, thus creating a system of government in which everyone would have to work for their money and wouldn't have to support people who can't be bothered to work as hard as the rest of them.

Bloody Trots. Communism is, like socialism, an economic theory, NOT a form of government.

Completely true, as far as it goes. However, government infrastructure by necessity supports an economic system, whether capitalism, communism, mercantilism or whatever other system. So while a government may be democratic/oligarchical/feudal in organization, it can be communist in economic policy.

In other words, while it's necessary to note that communism does not imply the form of government, democratic or no, it is still largely an aspect of government.

Distinctions must be drawn, but connections cannot be ignored.

Yours in Friendship,
Lady Viole Of the First

Ah yes, communist morality. Greed is bad, theft is good!

In actuality it all stems from class conflict... but more specifically, envy. The workers of Russia, witnessing the nobility and all their wealth, wanted it for themselves. It's no coincidence that most communists have a lack, not abundance, of Things. They want to fill their lack by pounding on the heartstring of what we might call, enforced charity.

Idiotic fucking nonsense. You have no understanding of humanism at all, do you? I'm all right, Jack, fuck the poor.

Socialism and communism spring from a distaste for a work where some people are rich and OTHERS ARE POOR. Look at two of the most prominent Russia revolutionaries - Bakunin and Kropotkin, children of the aristocracy. Two men who gave up a life of privilege to fight for the poor.

It is not envious to want a fair world, to want fair play for all, to want privilege ended and everyone have enough to eat. I don't want Bill Gates' riches, but I would like to see them invested in providing every child in the United States proper healthcare, or investing in providing anti-AIDS drugs to everyone in Africa.

Redistribution of wealth doesn't mean taking what is someone else's and sharing it around, it's about workers taking their fair share as humans. Who or what gives people the right to be rich? To take for themselves what could and should belong to all? By what right can a rich man buy a piece of art that should be part of all humanity's heritage? By what right do the rich get to eat while people starve in Africa.

Fundamental human concepts such as fairness and justice fuel true communism, a wish to end a system that is unfair and unjust, the same spirit that ended the automatic privilege of royalty, the same spirit that ended the abomination that was slavery, the same spirit that has fueled every revolution - the spirit that is crushed by every jumped up little leader who greedily takes the spoils of the revolutionary just as the jumped up little bosses and owners take the spoil of the worker.

The earth does not belong to the few, it belongs to everyone on it and the cosy agreement between the rich and the politicians that allow them to share it among themselves and lock the rest of us out, leaving the majority of the population to buy what they sell us and believe what they tell us, is not going to last forever.

BRING ON THE REVOLUTION!

Vas.

That's because there hasn't been. The nearest has been Spain for a brief period during the Spanish Civil War, and Russia before the Bolsheviks launched their counter revolution.OK so now we agree on that. Now how about any Capitalist nations? Has any nation ever exisited without any public property where owners were allowed to do whateve they wanted with their property and reap all the profit from their property? I cannot think of any Capitalist nations, heave there ever been any?

Maybe your parents didn't explain this to you, but greed isn't wanting your fair share. Maybe at your birthday party, your parents didn't object to you taking the entire birthday cake into your room and told you the guests who complained were the greedy ones. However, most children are taught that it's fair to share and everyone should get an equal slice of birthday cake and it's greedy to want more than anyone else and perfectly justifiable if you complain because your piece is clearly smaller.

Vas.

Those children didn't have to work hard to earn qualifications and a job through their own abilities in order to get that birthday cake. If someone's passed all their A-levels and set up a business that's doing wonders for the economy and providing jobs for thousands of people, they deserve more money than a slob who sits around their house all day eating crisps and sponging off the state, surely?

Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org) is an interesting resource. I get a perfect 10/10, Libertarian Communist. However, I don't agree with them on a few things.

For example, fascism stands in direct opposition to communism. Mussolini--generally considered the founder of fascism--wanted to prevent the rise of communism in Italy, and did so by collaborating with big business and spreading nationalist propaganda. In fact, a widely recognized central point of fascism is close ties to business leaders.

Marxism, on the other hand, is more than a mere economic system. It has a strong basis in racial and gender equality, and internationalism, that has, all too often, been disregarded by socialist regimes in favor of the concept of, 'dictatorship of the proletariat.'

In any case, the two philosophies are directly at odds, something that Political Compass fails to take into account.

Of course, this is all a matter of perspective. A distinction needs to be made with between the social and economic theories of Marxism, and communism, as well as between the staunch anti-communism and nationalism of fascism and its Nazi offshoot.

Yours in Friendship,
Lady Viole Of the First

What we all need to understand is that it is the WORKING CLASS that builds a nation, and the workers are best defended by socialism! People assume that the ruling class contributes more, but in actuality it doesn't. people associate the idea that the manager of a company is in charge, or on top, of the workers, and therefore should get more money. Sadly, its that simple. All jobs contribute the same amount--a doctor could save a life a week, yet a bagboy at a grocery store may serve over 30 people a day! In capitalism, everyone gains based on profit. Profit means that you have worked a certain amount and are trying to capitalize it for a little extra more than the labor's value, the profit! Eventually, the profit comes from someone... In socialism, everyone gains according to 2 factors: What they have worked for (no more), and in more orthodox marxisms the need of the individual is factorred in. That way everyone grows mutually.

With socialism, there is no unemployment, little motivation for crime, and the working class is happy. They are not poor, contrary to common belief. It simply depends on how much the nation actually has! That is why the workers in the USSR had so little--they still do in capitalism! Nothing gives the corperate leaders the right to take away the workers' money!

We must understand that since socialism defends the working class, lazy bums get nothing, because they do not WORK!!! Socialism is strongly against welfare to the unemployed.

Finally, we must understand that socialism is simply an economic system and should definitely go with democracy. Marx even said that freedom cannot be sacraficed for equality.

All in all, the only way to defend capitalism is to be greedy with high hopes and dreams of wealth, when in actuality you must not choose your system based on your personal needs, but the needs of the people, nay the workers.

Idiotic fucking nonsense. You have no understanding of humanism at all, do you? I'm all right, Jack, fuck the poor.

...

Fundamental human concepts such as fairness and justice fuel true communism

...

The earth does not belong to the few, it belongs to everyone on it and the cosy agreement between the rich and the politicians that allow them to share it among themselves and lock the rest of us out, leaving the majority of the population to buy what they sell us and believe what they tell us, is not going to last forever.

Lovely post, Vas.

... to add someone to your list of prominent revolutionaries, Alexandra Kollontai was another child of the aristocracy, communist, and the first woman ambassador. She demonstrates the true revolutionary spirit of the Bolsheviks, unfortunately weakened by Lenin's policies, and later crushed by Stalin.

...practical Leninism(NOT--I stress--NOT the dictatorship of the proletariat as practiced).
In practice this was dictatorship minus the proletariat.


Here's a few definitions, for you:
Thank you! I got so tired of everyone on the procapitalist side lumping all of these together. I also got tired of all the misuse of communism and socialism.
It only took...what...7 or 8 pages.

Socialism; An economic system that is a cross between capitalism and true communism. It is often, and incorrectly, assumed to synonymous with communism, but is more correctly used to describe the transition to communism.
I would agree with this, but it needs a little more...
"The organisation of society in such a manner that any individual, man or woman, finds at birth equal means for the development of their respective faculties and the utilisation of their labour. The organisation of society in such a manner that the exploitation by one person of the labour of his neighbour would be impossible, and where everyone will be allowed to enjoy the social wealth only to the extent of their contribution to the production of that wealth." August Bebel

Communism; a government where the means of production are owned by the workers. Ideally, the government must be democratic.
Ideally...I'd say it is mandatory as in Marx's idea. Despite the term being used to describe many countries, Communism has never been put into practice. It is important to describe things as they are and not what they want to be called. Otherwise it muddles the definitions and the argument, and is then easily used to bastardize the true meaning of the term. IMHO, Communism and Marxism are one in the same since Marx is the one that came up with it.


By these definitions, all current and past 'communist' states were all socialist, with most being national socialist, working toward the interests of their own people, even at the cost of the international working community. Cuba in particular can be said to be a true socialist state, due to its continued promotion of social justice in other nations, whereas North Korea's extreme isolationism is an excellent example of national socialism.

I disagree.
First, I would say using national socialist is not a good idea since it is mostly linked to the Nazi's, who had no socialist qualities, and should be rightly named fascists. Hitler only used 'socialist' because a true socialist movement was on the rise at the time.
So, it might be better to call it state socialist. And I hesitate to use that term widely, but I don't have a better term, and state communism is even further off.
I think state socialist definitely fits for Cuba. It also sort of fits for the USSR after the Bolshevik counter revolution and up to Stalin, and probably Mao's China. After Mao, China turned into what can be better described as state capitalist. And...The USSR from Stalin onward should be described as Stalinism, a totalitarian workers state.

For more info and background on these terms, I recoment going to www.marxists.org

Lovely post, Vas.

I'll second that. Well said Vas and Voroziniya too.

I wonder if this sums it up (to a very basic level). The question boils down to, who deserves to be better protected, the "less fortunate working class" or the "people who work harder for their money"?

Both are hard-working groups of people, but both have a complementary group of people who will try to manipulate the system for their benefit. For every hard-handed working class citizen there is a free-loading welfare recipient. And for every person who has worked excessively hard to make an outstanding contribution to society there is a corporate politican lining his own pockets.

I stand in the middle - that it's not fair to overprotect nor stifle either group, but I'm curious how this will be used by the two sides here.

I wonder if this sums it up (to a very basic level). The question boils down to, who deserves to be better protected, the "less fortunate working class" or the "people who work harder for their money"?
This is not an either or situation. They are both desribe the same group. Capitalism doesn't reward the people that work the hardest...the factory worker breaks his back for maybe $5-15/hr. while the CEO sits on his @ss all day in rakes in millions. I know what you're trying to say here, but the working class works the hardest and is not compensated.

Both are hard-working groups of people, but both have a complementary group of people who will try to manipulate the system for their benefit. For every hard-handed working class citizen there is a free-loading welfare recipient.
Ya...CEO's and owners mostly. End corporate wellfare!

I have no respect for those that are able to work and choose not to. However, one of the terrible mechanisms of capitalism is that it only works with a large [large here means like the avg. unemployment in the U.$.; ~10% or more, the real amount...not the amount seen on tv that counts only those on unemployment benefits] amount of unemployment. They are used to bust strikes and unions, driving down wages and increasing surplus value (see Marx).

And for every person who has worked excessively hard to make an outstanding contribution to society there is a corporate politican lining his own pockets.
"Outstanding contribution to society" is bs for the vast majority of the owners/CEO's. It is certainly true that our politicians are corporate owned for the most. Sad...but, true.

"Outstanding contribution to society" is bs for the vast majority of the owners/CEO's. It is certainly true that our politicians are corporate owned for the most. Sad...but, true.

That's incredibly narrow-minded... not all rich people are owners and CEOs. I was thinking of scientists, medical workers, public safety officials and even entertainers whose work either directly contributes to society or those who make huge donations of time and money to charity.

^Also, you do realize that the largest single donation to charity was made by an owner/CEO, don't you? You can't demonize an entire group of people, which was my point.^

By socialism, i'm assuming that the originator meant state-controlled economy, and capitalism is free economy. Each case has pros and cons. Capitalism to make tons of wealth; state-controlled to choose where the workers work, which parts of economy are wanted to work and shut down those that are unwanted

That's incredibly narrow-minded... not all rich people are owners and CEOs.
True. There are also movie stars and athletes, who also contribute nothing to society except for a small entertainment value. Some work hard, and a lot don't, but they're all way overpaid. [I would hope we agree on that.]


I was thinking of scientists, medical workers, public safety officials and even entertainers whose work either directly contributes to society or those who make huge donations of time and money to charity.
Yes, these people contribute a lot to society. However, these people are the middle class. [As a scientist myself, I know first hand]. They are not the rich. The rich are the upper class.

However, these people are the middle class. [As a scientist myself, I know first hand]. They are not the rich. The rich are the upper class.

Now you're making things up. I chose those occupations from the top 25 list of highest paying jobs. ^More specificially, surgeons, physicists, air traffic controllers, and professional atheletes.^

Now you're making things up. I chose those occupations from the top 25 list of highest paying jobs. ^More specificially, surgeons, physicists, air traffic controllers, and professional atheletes.^
I'm not talking about the avg salary of all athletes. The overall averages probably include all minor league players as well.

I'm talking about these pro athletes:
avg for NFL: $1,169,470 (2001)
avg. for NBA: $3,783,867 (2003-2204)
avg. for MLB: $2,555,476 (2003)
avg. for NHL: $1.8 million (2003-2004)

I couldn't find a top 25 list, but this is from the top 10 (http://www.careeruniversities.com/top_ten_career_salaries.htm) list I found:

1.Surgeons $137,050/yr

2.Obstetricians and gynecologists $133,430/yr

3.Anesthesiologists $131,680/yr
...

I also found a top 25 for only Indiana that had surgeons at ~$198,000.


Eventhough middle class is usually defined as $25,000 to $100,000, I consider the middle class to be up to $200,000 or even $300,000 because of increasing CEO pay and profits that are widening the gap at the top, and the rising cost of living that is pushing up the lower end of the middle class. The lower bound should be around $40,000 in my opinion.

More data from faireconomy.org (http://www.faireconomy.org/press/2004/CEOPayRatio_pr.html) [stats from Business Week]:

Average Worker Takes Home $517 a Week; Average CEO $155,769 a Week

After declining for the last two years, the gap in pay between average workers and large company CEOs surpassed 300-to-1 in 2003. In 2002, the ratio stood at 282-to-1. In 1982, it was just 42-to-1.

the average large company CEO received compensation totaling $8.1 million in 2003

From 1990 to 2003:
CEO pay rose 313%
Corporate profits rose 128%
Average worker pay rose 49%
Inflation rose 41%

The average production worker fared less well in 2003. Their annual pay was $26,899 in 2003, up just 2.1% from 2002 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average worker took home $517 in their weekly paycheck in 2003; the average large company CEO took home $155,769 in their weekly pay.If the minimum wage had increased as quickly as CEO pay since 1990, it would today be $15.71 per hour, more than three times the current minimum wage of $5.15 an hour.
So...no, I'm not making this sh*t up.

Also, you do realize that the largest single donation to charity was made by an owner/CEO, don't you? You can't demonize an entire group of people, which was my point.

Of course, because they're rich. Now, a more telling factoid is that the largest donations, as a percentage of the income of the person, are consistently from the poorest sections of society.

Vas.

By socialism, i'm assuming that the originator meant state-controlled economy

Why would you assume that? It's wrong.

Vas.

Both are hard-working groups of people, but both have a complementary group of people who will try to manipulate the system for their benefit. For every hard-handed working class citizen there is a free-loading welfare recipient.

How many welfare recipients are actual free-loaders and how many are people failed by society? By this I mean, inadequately educated, given inadequate sex education, left high and dry with a child and no access to affordable childcare, etc, etc, etc? How many people on welfare would be happy to work if they could find the right job as opposed to working in mind-numbing factory work? Being unemployed turns you into a free-loader, it's debasing, depressing and basically soul-destroying. The longer it goes on, the more difficult it is to find the energy to find a job. I've been there. Capitalism requires a certain number of unemployed people to persuade people not to complain too much. The threat of unemployment is one of the most powerful methods of control of workers and it's much easier to make the threat when there's a visible illustration.

Vas.

BAAWA - your theory is interesting... you seem to suggest a system where you start at zero, but maintain zero.
No, that's not right at all.

This unfortunately requires an entire economic failure or the ability to start from scratch to begin this system, but assuming that happens, how is a system like this maintained?
Effort. Something the socialists and communists dislike.

What keeps the system recursive and stops it from either blossoming into one of these other systems, or falling into unrecoverable debt ^in a world economy^?
Effort. The priority of property rights.

Effort. Something the socialists and communists dislike.

Hardly. We just believe life should be enjoyed rather than spent focusing on work.

Effort. The priority of property rights.

As though the rich employ effort. Being born into a rich family requires no effort. Can you at least try to be honest.

As though the rich employ effort. Being born into a rich family requires no effort. Can you at least try to be honest.
Here, in American at least, most of the rich aren't born into a rich family. They made it within they're own lifetime working their asses off.
Examples: Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Bill O'Reilly, Dave Thomas (founder of Wendys'), John Edwards, Arnold Schwarzinager, Monihan (Founder of Dominoes Pizza), Ray Kroc (founder of McDonald's), Rush Limbaugh, Will Smith, Walt Disney, Jesse James (founder of West Coast Choppers), Harrison Ford, Billy Lane (founder of Choppers Inc), Paul Yaffe, the founder of Famous Amos. The majority of American rich are self-made. They got there through intelligence and hard work. Under a socialist system, they never would have gotten where they are today.

Effort. Something the socialists and communists dislike
Hardly. We just believe life should be enjoyed rather than spent focusing on work.
aka no effort.

Effort. The priority of property rights.
As though the rich employ effort.
Some do.

Being born into a rich family requires no effort.
So what? How did that family become rich in the first place?

THINK!

Can you at least think?

Bill O'Reilly

You.... Sicken me and the fact you respect the man proves the level of your intelligence.

Americans? Don't ever come to Europe. Because on the continent... We hate you.

...I point you to the history of capitalism and communism and ask you who murdered their own people by the millions? Margaret Thatcher or Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung?

...

You have to take people as they are, greedy or whatever, and compare real free markets with real communism. Otherwise you're being unscientific.

How about Pinochet? The Contras? The Cuban exiles? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Rwanda? They are each capitalist regimes, and each one of them must be counted.

I've been through this argument before, kid, and this is a game of one-upmanship you will lose hands down. Every international war, most counter-revolutionary wars, all have been in the defense of capitalism. Both world wars. The invasion of Russia after WWI by fourteen--14--capitalist countries. Vietnam. Korea. Iraq. Kosovo.

Add those that are ignored to death, on the streets of America, or starved in Africa. Capitalism. Those who die of AIDS when the disease can be slowed, those who die of more treatable illnesses. Capitalism. The Paris Commune. Capitalism. For power. For greed.

But I must be an arrogant little girl, poor, using a library computer. Perhaps I am some of those killed reincarnated, which explains my anger at the loss of life. Certainly, my desire for social justice is just a wish to live my life without working. I've never had a girlfriend--too nerdy. Never had a boyfriend--too ugly. Never even had sex. Just a bitter little git, who doesn't know anything at all.

Ha. Welcome to a world where changing your mind in the face of new information is waffling, and stubbornness in the face of all evidence is integrity. Where torture is a fraternity prank. Where rape is what women deserve.

Yes, I am angry. Why? Because you think for one moment that your blood-soaked government is by, for, and of the people. I am tired of being told what to do by a man who knows far less than I, who is incompetent, ignorant, and foolish. For twenty thousand a year, I would run your corporation, and I'd do better than most, because I believe in social justice. I believe in doing the right thing. The hardest part would be convincing the shareholders that profit isn't everything, and that sometimes right leaves your pockets empty.

Your nation is one step away from creating a genetically superior class, with whom your children will not be able to compete. It is the epitome of capitalism, a dictatorship by, of, and for the rich, the corporations, the few. I cannot stand for that, and so I will fight it to my last breath.

Yours in Friendship,
Lady Viole Of the First.

You.... Sicken me and the fact you respect the man proves the level of your intelligence.

Americans? Don't ever come to Europe. Because on the continent... We hate you.

I merely pointed out that Bill O'Reilly came from a humble home, and is now living very comfortably. You'll notice I also included Bill Clinton and John Edwards in that list, and they're on the opposite end of the political spectrum.

Here, in American at least, most of the rich aren't born into a rich family. They made it within they're own lifetime working their asses off.
Examples: Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Bill O'Reilly, Dave Thomas (founder of Wendys'), John Edwards, Arnold Schwarzinager, Monihan (Founder of Dominoes Pizza), Ray Kroc (founder of McDonald's), Rush Limbaugh, Will Smith, Walt Disney, Jesse James (founder of West Coast Choppers), Harrison Ford, Billy Lane (founder of Choppers Inc), Paul Yaffe, the founder of Famous Amos.
So, here you list a lot of entertainers. People that are not working as hard as the guy at the factory down the street. How do these entertains get paid? They get there money because of the cult of personality. Just because they can act, or are on tv or radio. What makes them so special? What makes them 25, 50, 100, 500 times better than me or you? Nothing. They are no better than you or I. Their money is generated by this cult of personality, way over priced movie tickets, and other thefted profits that come from cheap overseas (usually sweatshop...like Disney corp.) labor that makes their merchandise.

As for the people that founded McDonald, Dominos, or any other giant chain...these corparations are scum. They sell poor quality food at high prices, and rip their employees off, and their consumers too. Lets look at a Dominos employee: He gets to start out at minimum wage...maybe a little more if he's lucky. Hardly a livable wage. So, why does he stay? Because he gets tips...an evil practice that pawns the owners responsibility of paying his workers off onto his customers.

Then there's Bill Gate. His money is made off a nearly monopoly like enterprise.
And politicians? Corporate bought illusions of people that are looking out for anyone or anything other than these corporations. Why does some layer like Edwards need to make that kind of money just by winning lawsuits? There is no reason. Its his freaking job, and its not worth millions.

Of course there are some exceptions out there, but this is the rule.

The majority of American rich are self-made. They got there through intelligence and hard work.
None of these people got anywhere just by themselves. And as far as the intelligence and hard work goes...I certainly am certainly more intellegent and work harder than O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Clinton, and most of the others. Where's my millions?


Under a socialist system, they never would have gotten where they are today.

Ya, maybe, but all the people that got stepped on so that they could have their pilferd riches wouldn't have suffered. There is only a finite amount of wealth. If someone gets more, others have to loose.

Effort. Something the socialists and communists dislike


Hardly. We just believe life should be enjoyed rather than spent focusing on work.
aka no effort.

Oh please. God forbid some people feel that we shouldn't have to slave all day working, missing time with our wives (or husbands) and our children!

This is an ignorance that needs rectifying. Socialists and communists believe in hard work. We believe that everyone should have a job, and be compensated their righful share. Two things that are not provided (or able to be provided for that matter) in capitalism.

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

We also believe that with our system, we won't have to work as long as we do in this capitalist rat race. Because what is really more important? Your family and friends, or you job? I'd say it's the former and not the latter.

So, what are you saying Kneejistan? That it's totally immoral to succeed? That it's wrong to get ahead of somebody else?
Let's make a little imaginary socialist utopia. We'll say that every adult is able to get by with $30,000/year. We'll set up tax codes so that the government will deduct just enough to bring everyone's salary down to that $30,000. The money taken from this will be distributed to all those who make too little. Everyone will have $30,000 per year, because everyone is equal. Doctors and garbagemen will make the same, because everyone deserves the same piece of the pie.
That just sounds perfect.
But what's the point? What's the point of studying all those years in school to become a doctor if most of the reward for your work is confiscated? I bet those doctors love their job, but they love their golf too. And if everyone is equal, if everyone deserves the same slice of pie no matter what, those doctors sould still get their piece even if they spend the day on the course and not in the OR.
A socialist society may start off well, but it won't last. You're taking away the incentives that drive success and excellence. The number of 'have-nots' will only grow as the number of 'haves' diminish. You'll have less and less people to take money from as more and more people are demanding you give it to them.

I bet those doctors love their job, but they love their golf too.
LOL?

This is an ignorance that needs rectifying. Socialists and communists believe in hard work. We believe that everyone should have a job, and be compensated their righful share. Two things that are not provided (or able to be provided for that matter) in capitalism.

Everyone should have a job, eh? If socialism is so great at providing that, why are the capitalist US unemployment rates half that of the socialist European nations?

So, here you list a lot of entertainers. People that are not working as hard as the guy at the factory down the street. How do these entertains get paid? They get there money because of the cult of personality. Just because they can act, or are on tv or radio. What makes them so special? What makes them 25, 50, 100, 500 times better than me or you? Nothing. They are no better than you or I. Their money is generated by this cult of personality, way over priced movie tickets, and other thefted profits that come from cheap overseas (usually sweatshop...like Disney corp.) labor that makes their merchandise.

As for the people that founded McDonald, Dominos, or any other giant chain...these corparations are scum. They sell poor quality food at high prices, and rip their employees off, and their consumers too. Lets look at a Dominos employee: He gets to start out at minimum wage...maybe a little more if he's lucky. Hardly a livable wage. So, why does he stay? Because he gets tips...an evil practice that pawns the owners responsibility of paying his workers off onto his customers.

Then there's Bill Gate. His money is made off a nearly monopoly like enterprise.
And politicians? Corporate bought illusions of people that are looking out for anyone or anything other than these corporations. Why does some layer like Edwards need to make that kind of money just by winning lawsuits? There is no reason. Its his freaking job, and its not worth millions.

Of course there are some exceptions out there, but this is the rule.


None of these people got anywhere just by themselves. And as far as the intelligence and hard work goes...I certainly am certainly more intellegent and work harder than O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Clinton, and most of the others. Where's my millions?




Ya, maybe, but all the people that got stepped on so that they could have their pilferd riches wouldn't have suffered. There is only a finite amount of wealth. If someone gets more, others have to loose.
Envy as usual. Not everyone can be millionaires. Why do you think you deserve your millions? Tomato pickers work hard, but do you think they deserve to be millionaires?

What do you think makes a millionaire and why do you think they would DESERVE to be one?

It's called supply and demand. There is a large demand for entertainment and a relatively small supply of decent actors. Anyone can pick a tomato.

Harrison Ford first made his success as a carpenter, not an actor.
Arnold Schwartzinager (danm that name!sp) made his money through body building, then took it to business, and then to acting.
I'll admit, Will Smith is a pure entertainer.

Everyone should have a job, eh? If socialism is so great at providing that, why are the capitalist US unemployment rates half that of the socialist European nations?
Have you even checked the unemployment rates in socialist countries in Europe or are you just spouting rhetoric?............

I thought so!!

So, what are you saying Kneejistan? That it's totally immoral to succeed? That it's wrong to get ahead of somebody else?
Let's make a little imaginary socialist utopia. We'll say that every adult is able to get by with $30,000/year. We'll set up tax codes so that the government will deduct just enough to bring everyone's salary down to that $30,000. The money taken from this will be distributed to all those who make too little. Everyone will have $30,000 per year, because everyone is equal. Doctors and garbagemen will make the same, because everyone deserves the same piece of the pie.
That just sounds perfect.
But what's the point? What's the point of studying all those years in school to become a doctor if most of the reward for your work is confiscated? I bet those doctors love their job, but they love their golf too. And if everyone is equal, if everyone deserves the same slice of pie no matter what, those doctors sould still get their piece even if they spend the day on the course and not in the OR.
A socialist society may start off well, but it won't last. You're taking away the incentives that drive success and excellence. The number of 'have-nots' will only grow as the number of 'haves' diminish. You'll have less and less people to take money from as more and more people are demanding you give it to them.
Ummm have you confused socialism with communism? Sure looks that way?

Have you even checked the unemployment rates in socialist countries in Europe or are you just spouting rhetoric?............

I thought so!!

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aOdqm_X5Zvvc&refer=europe
The average unemployment rate among the twelve countries that share the Euro= 8.9%

http://www.cnn.com/2003/BUSINESS/02/05/german.jobs/
Germany's unemployment=10.5%

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/lab_une_rat&id=EUR
Only the UK is lower than the US at 5.2%

http://www.sces.org/lmi/data/trends/charts/Chartroom/sld004.htm
Here it shows the US is at 5.6%. Lower than nearly every European country in the above site.

http://www.bls.gov/
Look at the latest numbers in the middle. US unemployment at 5.6%

hmmm, this seems to have turned into a sort of conservative vs liberal thing. well, prehaps i can show you all why you are wrong. all of you. i'm too liberal for liberals and too conservative for conservative. so, that would make me a libertarian.

being as i am both libertarian and superior to my fellow man, i can safely say that i want the nation i live in, and solely that nation, to be a capitalist one. and all other nations to be socialist ones.

why?

because i want money. and since socialism is inherently inferior to capitalism in terms of economic and social purposes, those socialist nations provide little or no competent economic competition. hence, my nation, would be all the more wealthy. and if i am unable to be wealthy in a capitalist society, clearly i don't deserve it.

too many people operate under the misconception that they are somehow special and deserve to be happy. sorry, but you don't and you aren't.

individuals are responsible only for themselves. why should groups of individuals be responsible for other groups of individuals. i happier being self-reliant than dependant. only people of inferior merit are dependant on society. it is quite zen-like when you think about it.

so, this is why your thinking is insanely wrong. unless you agree with me and haven't realised why yet. or prehaps this has already been discused. but, frankly, i can't be arsed to read every wrong post in this thread.

thank you.

I agree with bascule, corporations just have too much power over governments in a capitalistic society. Case in point, the health insurance lobby in the US. They have so much money that they fund both parties or just Republicans keeping Clinton and anyone else from making the obvious transition to a universial healthcare system. I gurantee all of you if the US allowed a full, incumbising health system people would get sick less often, live longer, and even living fuller, more execiting lives. Capitalism in short, puts the botttom-line over human life leaving corporate responsibility all but a myth. As for in an equally complex federal republic such as France where they allow corporations to work as long as they meet worker-based corporate responsibility laws and where the government controls all public service industries such as healthcare, transportation, etc. Obviously Democratic Socilism still allows outside industry to compete at a high level while the greater masses still live fuller and healthier lives.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aOdqm_X5Zvvc&refer=europe
The average unemployment rate among the twelve countries that share the Euro= 8.9%

http://www.cnn.com/2003/BUSINESS/02/05/german.jobs/
Germany's unemployment=10.5%

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/lab_une_rat&id=EUR
Only the UK is lower than the US at 5.2%

http://www.sces.org/lmi/data/trends/charts/Chartroom/sld004.htm
Here it shows the US is at 5.6%. Lower than nearly every European country in the above site.

http://www.bls.gov/
Look at the latest numbers in the middle. US unemployment at 5.6%

What is the TRUE US unemployment figure? I believe when you factor in discouraged workers and eliminate those working part-time (which BTW are counted as employed even if they work 1 hour a week), the US unemployment rate is closer to 10%.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

According to the CIA listing, the US is ranked 55 lowest unemployment.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2129rank.html

European Union Countries with unemployment rates lower than the US:

Denmark, Finland, Liechtenstein , Luxembourg, Switzerland, Netherlands, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, United Kingdom, Denmark, Portugal, Hungary, Austria, and Cyprus.

The only ones that meet your claim as having double the US unemployment (even if I give you your figure of 5.6%) are Spain, Slovakia and Poland. Note that Slovakia and Poland just joined the Union in May 2004.

Now which of the above is socialist, I am uncertain, but I do know that Norway, which is not on this list, but is a socialist country, was ranked number 1 in the world by the Human Development Index. Sweden also a socialist country was ranked number 2.

Norway also ranked number 1 in GDP per person at $36,600 USD

BTW, look lower on this map that you provided, you missed quite a few countries.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/lab_une_rat&id=EUR

Also, note that the US ranked # 17 on the human poverty index. Such a dismal performance by the world's richest country.

http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/indic/indic_27_1_1.html

What does that tell you about capitalism?

hmmm, this seems to have turned into a sort of conservative vs liberal thing. well, prehaps i can show you all why you are wrong. all of you. i'm too liberal for liberals and too conservative for conservative. so, that would make me a libertarian.

being as i am both libertarian and superior to my fellow man, i can safely say that i want the nation i live in, and solely that nation, to be a capitalist one. and all other nations to be socialist ones.

why?

because i want money. and since socialism is inherently inferior to capitalism in terms of economic and social purposes, those socialist nations provide little or no competent economic competition. hence, my nation, would be all the more wealthy. and if i am unable to be wealthy in a capitalist society, clearly i don't deserve it.

too many people operate under the misconception that they are somehow special and deserve to be happy. sorry, but you don't and you aren't.

individuals are responsible only for themselves. why should groups of individuals be responsible for other groups of individuals. i happier being self-reliant than dependant. only people of inferior merit are dependant on society. it is quite zen-like when you think about it.

so, this is why your thinking is insanely wrong. unless you agree with me and haven't realised why yet. or prehaps this has already been discused. but, frankly, i can't be arsed to read every wrong post in this thread.

thank you.
Your premise sputters as soon as you stumble out of the starting gate. No man is an island, and as much as you ride the pink clouds, the reality is that you are dependent upon the world no matter what, and so would your sole capitalist country be dependent. As a matter of fact, your sole capitalist country would be at a huge disadvantage.

You can now resume your dream, wherever you left off.....

Capitalism or Socialism?

Obviously, they balance eachother out, but I would rather sleep well knowing that everyone else is sleeping warm and happy, rather than be unable to sleep because I am fearful that another company will overun me.

Easy one: Do you want to Win, or lose? Do you want to have the option to choose?

Both are the same: One way or the other you become a vampire(dependant) of the state/society in which you live. The state(society) in which you live makes all the decisions for you.

Big Jim P

I know the poll would go with socialism becasue more socialist play then capitalist do.

Let's make a little imaginary socialist utopia. We'll say that every adult is able to get by with $30,000/year. We'll set up tax codes so that the government will deduct just enough to bring everyone's salary down to that $30,000. The money taken from this will be distributed to all those who make too little. Everyone will have $30,000 per year, because everyone is equal. Doctors and garbagemen will make the same, because everyone deserves the same piece of the pie.
That just sounds perfect.
But what's the point? What's the point of studying all those years in school to become a doctor if most of the reward for your work is confiscated? I bet those doctors love their job, but they love their golf too. And if everyone is equal, if everyone deserves the same slice of pie no matter what, those doctors sould still get their piece even if they spend the day on the course and not in the OR.
A socialist society may start off well, but it won't last. You're taking away the incentives that drive success and excellence. The number of 'have-nots' will only grow as the number of 'haves' diminish. You'll have less and less people to take money from as more and more people are demanding you give it to them.

Here you have outlined the major problem of socialist economies. Ordinary people tend to want to work and get rewards proportional to their work. Socialists have a skewed perspective on that; they assume business owners get far too much reward and others far too little; their solution is to take away the entire concept of work and reward and replace it all with government dependency.

Kind of makes me wonder how those who voted socialist on the poll consider themselves to be revolutionary, rebellious, when they just incourage Big Brother to solve everything.

Does that mean, since they view business as more evil/inefficient than government, that they approve of government actions and policies so far, and want more of it? Somehow I think not. Somehow, I think they wish to blame government's failings on corporations and Evil Capitalists Who Are More Successful Than Me, thus excusing government from all faults and placing government in the role of social and economic supremacy.

This is why I've stated that socialists are confused.

I agree with bascule, corporations just have too much power over governments in a capitalistic society.
There shouldn't be a government at all in capitalism.

Case in point, the health insurance lobby in the US. They have so much money that they fund both parties or just Republicans keeping Clinton and anyone else from making the obvious transition to a universial healthcare system.
Universal health care = death-knell for the healthcare industry.

I gurantee all of you if the US allowed a full, incumbising health system people would get sick less often,
No, they would get sick more often because they wouldn't have to worry about paying for it.

live longer,
No, they wouldn't. They would have to wait excrutiatingly long for basic services.

and even living fuller, more execiting lives.
....with no money to purchase even the basics because the government has stolen it all for the healthcare system.

Capitalism in short, puts the botttom-line over human life leaving corporate responsibility all but a myth.
No, it doesn't. If a company kills its customers, how does it stay in business?

As for in an equally complex federal republic such as France where they allow corporations to work as long as they meet worker-based corporate responsibility laws and where the government controls all public service industries such as healthcare, transportation, etc.
And they are suffering.

Obviously Democratic Socilism still allows outside industry to compete at a high level while the greater masses still live fuller and healthier lives.
No, it doesn't. It just spreads the misery.

Just to clear up some misconceptions raised about Universal Health Care in Canada for instance:

COST:

http://consumeraffairs.com/news03/health_costs.html

The overhead cost of operating the United States health-care system is more than three times that of running Canada's on a per capita basis, and the gap is getting bigger, according to a study published today in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Savings gleaned from a national health insurance system like Canada's would be enough to provide medical insurance for the 41 million Americans who now lack coverage, the researchers said.

AVAILABILITY:

Universal and for basic services there are no "excruciatingly long waiting periods".

USAGE:

People don't "get sick more often because they wouldn't have to worry about paying for it". I had to laugh at that one!! The fact is that Canadians will probably go to the doctor more often than Americans for checkups, etc. but there is a benefit to that? We have wellness clinics and preventative medical treatment centres.

TANGIBLE BENEFITS:

Canada has a lower infant mortality rate (5 per 1,000) than the US (7 per 1,000)

Canada has a higher life expectancy (79.3) than the US (77.1)

SUMMARY:

While Canada certainly doesn't have the best healthcare in the world, it is competetive, even though it spends only 1/2 to 1/3 of what America pays for healthcare. This web site provides some interesting considerations in determining the best healthcare in the world:

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040503-084924-5336r.htm

Personally, I find it shocking that the US spends that much on healthcare and that 41 Million Americans don't have health insurance coverage.

Just to clear up some misconceptions raised about Universal Health Care in Canada for instance:
Oh there's no misconceptions. I have many Canadian friends who absolutely hate the system and tell me that YES there are excruciatingly long waits for many types of surgeries and that they are forced to contribute to a system that they do not use.

Personally, I'm shocked that people advocate the level of theft that is universal health care.

I voted socialism simply because of the fact that everyone is provided for no matter what. look at Canada's healtcare system compared to that of the US

now everyone go vote in my poll of who will win the upcoming election for president

look at the US's healthcare system. the amout of cash taken out of paychecks for healt costs increses by double digits every year. if that keeps up, politicians will be forced to act or else healtcare will become the enitre economy of the world's most powerful nation

Okay... people... I've voted Socialism, but I've seen alot of posts saying "you can't compare them, one's a government system!"

I'd just like to point out that everyone who has said this is an idiot. They are both economic systems!!!!!!

I'll go for socialism but I would prefer communism.

I would like to point out at that most of the natyions with very high GDP (America is not up there - America is only the richest nation when the population is not taken into account - America is simply huge, and thus has a lot of money, but the individuals themselves aren't that wealthy), like France, Britain, Germany, Holland and Scandinavia, etc. all have some very socialist policies. Admittedly, Japan is exceedingly rich, and trying to claim they were socialist is a joke, but socialism doesn't damage a nation's economy as much as people seem to think. The key is to have a balance of socialism and capitalism - socialism can destroy economies by frightening off business with high taxation on the rich, but socialism also ensures that the bottom socio-economic layers are still actually useful, and provides them with work and opportunities. Sweden has the highest (or did, at least... I'm not sure if it is still true) prercentage of the nation's in the public sector of any nation outside of communism, and one can hardly say Sweden is a poor nation. So yeah, I said socialism.

I really should have checked that befpre sending... I meanrt to say Sweden has a high percetage of its wealth in the public sector, than any other nation, that isn't communist.

Capitalism is by far superior to socialism, just compare the quality of life between Westeran and Eastern Europe.
Even old political socialist leaders like Vaclac Havel (ex-socialist president of Chec Republic) now speak about the virtues of an econocmic system where someone is responsable for the results of a company or institution.
I preffer a capitalist system because:
1) It brings more material progress to people than a socialist system. The fake equality of socialism has big costs in long terms.
2) Private corporations have much less corruption than the governmental ones.
3) The best ways to provide help and social welfare is subsidizing the demand and not the offer.
4) Diversity is more likely to be achieved with economic freedom. If a government controls too much economic activities and also finance cultural and artistics expressions, it always remains the danger of promoting especific cultural expresions and exclude others.
5) It's not logic or even reasonable that everybody has the same level of life or the same material goods while there's different levels of effort among people.
6) Equality has more to do with having the same opportunities than the same income or goods.
7) Capitalism has proven to be a better way to develop an economy. Asian countries and Chile are examples of that. England is another example. At the beginning of the 20th century it was the richest country in the world and after developing a monstrous social wellfare based on socialist ideas it has stucked their economy.
8) Basing a system on individual effort develop human virtues like asigning values to things. If the goverment gives me money for not working through several months, it encourages lazyness.

look at the US's healthcare system. the amout of cash taken out of paychecks for healt costs increses by double digits every year. if that keeps up, politicians will be forced to act or else healtcare will become the enitre economy of the world's most powerful nation
Yes, they should act to get the government totally out of the healthcare industry. No more medicare. No more medicaid. No more FDA. etc

I would like to point out at that most of the natyions with very high GDP (America is not up there - America is only the richest nation when the population is not taken into account - America is simply huge, and thus has a lot of money, but the individuals themselves aren't that wealthy), like France, Britain, Germany, Holland and Scandinavia, etc. all have some very socialist policies. Admittedly, Japan is exceedingly rich, Can I just say wrong?

GDP per capita, US$, 2002 per UN HDI index:

US 36,006
France: 24,061
UK: 26,444
Germany: 24,051
Netherlands: 25,886
Norway: 41,974 (north sea oil)
Sweden: 26,929
Denmark: 32,179
Finnland: 25,295
Japan: 31,047

In fact the US is 4th in the world for GDP per capita losing out to Norway, Luxemborg and Switzerland - which means the US has an economy not propped up solely by North Sea oil or banking.

Oh there's no misconceptions. I have many Canadian friends who absolutely hate the system and tell me that YES there are excruciatingly long waits for many types of surgeries and that they are forced to contribute to a system that they do not use.

Personally, I'm shocked that people advocate the level of theft that is universal health care.
Well I am sure that they would like to pay more and get less as per the US model? Personally speaking, I believe the system works well. Actually most Canadians pefer to have Universal Health Care, even with the spots, compared to the US model.

Elective surgeries take longer for sure but immediate health cares are dealt with promptly.

so here is a qustion for those that support socialism. whay is the U.S economy so powerfull?

so here is a qustion for those that support socialism. whay is the U.S economy so powerfull?
Because the US spends 50% of the worlds' total on the military?

Because the US spends 50% of the worlds' total on the military?
so spending 3.5% of our budget on the military is why? if that is the case why have others not done so

Actually, it's more like 18% of the budget. Some have argued that the real total is much higher.

Also, is there any significance to the fact that capitalism sounds like cannabalism.

my mistake it is 3.7% of the GDP
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php

I personally believe capitalism is better. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I do expect them not to flame.

the U.S is proff that it is better. both canada and russa have more natural resources. it not that we have the biggest population. it is our system that many seem to hate.

Envy as usual. Not everyone can be millionaires. Why do you think you deserve your millions? Tomato pickers work hard, but do you think they deserve to be millionaires?

What do you think makes a millionaire and why do you think they would DESERVE to be one?
I was being sarcastic. No one needs to have millions of dollars. Its just greedy to want to be rich, or want to have more than someone else. No one works that much harder than people making say $30k. What I'm trying to say is that no one deserves to be a millionaire.

So, what are you saying Kneejistan? That it's totally immoral to succeed? That it's wrong to get ahead of somebody else?
I'm not saying its immoral to succeed. The problem is what you're thinking of success...lot's of money. Success should be derived from your accomplishments in the job. Its not something that should have a money value attached to it. Doctors and gargbagemen, I would say work equally hard. There is no reason they should be paid so differently.

Let's make a little imaginary socialist utopia. We'll say that every adult is able to get by with $30,000/year. We'll set up tax codes so that the government will deduct just enough to bring everyone's salary down to that $30,000. The money taken from this will be distributed to all those who make too little. Everyone will have $30,000 per year, because everyone is equal. Doctors and garbagemen will make the same, because everyone deserves the same piece of the pie.
That just sounds perfect.
But what's the point? What's the point of studying all those years in school to become a doctor if most of the reward for your work is confiscated?
As I've said before, the reward comes from doing a good job, and helping people...saving people's lives. In a socialist system education would be free through phd., so that anyone could enjoy the rewards of a good education. Not everyone wants to be doctors and maybe the garbageman wants to study liturature, but can't afford to go to college. Education is wealth, and it shouldn't be denied to those that can't afford it.

I bet those doctors love their job, but they love their golf too.
Ooh ya, because golf is so important. A great game for the rich! In a socialist system fees wouldn't be so high, and the price of equipment would be affordable so that more people could enjoy this nice game. Really, I like to play golf too, but its way too expensive.

And if everyone is equal, if everyone deserves the same slice of pie no matter what, those doctors sould still get their piece even if they spend the day on the course and not in the OR.
NOW, who is talking about wellfare slackers! If you don't work, you shouldn't be paid. Yes, people are equal, but the equality in socialism comes by working. You work, you get paid...you don't work, you don't get paid. If you have a job, as everyone in a socialist system would, then you'll be motivated to work.


A socialist society may start off well, but it won't last. You're taking away the incentives that drive success and excellence. The number of 'have-nots' will only grow as the number of 'haves' diminish.
The whole problem is the capitalist system of 'haves' and 'havenots'.

You'll have less and less people to take money from as more and more people are demanding you give it to them.
This isn't true. It's not taking money away from someone to give it to someone else. Its about paying people what is just. Its not going to run out like you think. In this system prices will be lower, and there will be an economy. People like to have things, so money will circulate.

Everyone should have a job, eh? If socialism is so great at providing that, why are the capitalist US unemployment rates half that of the socialist European nations?
Because these are not true socialist nations. They run on a capitalist economy with a socialist scoial programs. A true socialist country would have both sides, something that hasn't been seen yet.

unemployment rates
I'm not sure how the europeans do unemployment, but I certainly know how the US numbers are derived. And...its complete bullshit.

5.6% is waaay too low. It only counts those on federal unemployment, which only lasts a short amount of time. I've read articles that state true unemployment is about 2-3 times that. One was about a county commish in Ohio that surveyed the population and found 17.5% unemployment. I'll try to find these sorces, and post them when I can.

Because these are not true socialist nations. They run on a capitalist economy with a socialist scoial programs. A true socialist country would have both sides, something that hasn't been seen yet.
There are no true free market nations either. But there is an obvious correlation between economic freedom and material wealth.

I was being sarcastic. No one needs to have millions of dollars.
Says who?

Its just greedy to want to be rich, or want to have more than someone else.
Ad hominem fallacy.

No one works that much harder than people making say $30k. What I'm trying to say is that no one deserves to be a millionaire.
Says who?

Says who?


Ad hominem fallacy.


Says who?
Him becasue he is a Socialist duh his thing must be better, Psst I wonder if he has ever tryed working for a Million its hard.

There are no true free market nations either. But there is an obvious correlation between economic freedom and material wealth.
Uh, wrong. The highest standards of living in the world at the present time are in the Scandinavian countries - the countries with the least "economic freedom" and the greatest proximity to socialism.

Him becasue he is a Socialist duh his thing must be better, Psst I wonder if he has ever tryed working for a Million its hard.
You don't seem to understand just how insanely rich the rich actually are. The personal fortune of Bill Gates, for example, is greater than the entire national budgets of relatively wealthy countries, such as Egypt or Pakistan (who is a nuclear power, among other things).

The richest of the rich have more wealth than hundreds of millions of poor workers put together.

Sure, it may be hard to exploit your workers enough to gain a million dollars... erm, I mean, it may be hard to "earn" a million dollars, but when you start claiming that you're working as hard as 100 million other people combined, it gets outright ridiculous.

Since no one can possibly work harder than millions of ordinary people put together, it is common sense that the rich are far richer than they deserve.

You don't seem to understand just how insanely rich the rich actually are. The personal fortune of Bill Gates, for example, is greater than the entire national budgets of relatively wealthy countries, such as Egypt or Pakistan (who is a nuclear power, among other things).

The richest of the rich have more wealth than hundreds of millions of poor workers put together.

Sure, it may be hard to exploit your workers enough to gain a million dollars... erm, I mean, it may be hard to "earn" a million dollars, but when you start claiming that you're working as hard as 100 million other people combined, it gets outright ridiculous.

Since no one can possibly work harder than millions of ordinary people put together, it is common sense that the rich are far richer than they deserve.
Yes but am I working on something tougher hard and something few people qualify for yes yes I am I spent an Extra 10 years in school loser. And who said life was alll work this much make this pay it isn't you loser, becasue when you're in demand you want pay (Plus I am 35 and am saving up for my childrens school private to any university they want to go to)

Here, let me show you exactly what I mean. When people argue that a certain degree of inequality must exist, they don't seem to realize that capitalism causes enourmous inequality, far beyond any reasonable levels:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/antic/wealth.gif

Socialism does NOT mean absolute equality. It means public ownership over the means of production, as well as a strong progressive income tax, ample social programs, etc. This does not result in the complete eradication of inequality, however. Socialism rewards hard work, and those who work more get more. But inequality is greatly reduced from the absurd levels that exist under capitalism to a more reasonable and acceptable level. The poorest people in socialism would earn about 3 or 4 times less than the richest people - not millions of times less, as they do in capitalism.

Yes but am I working on something tougher hard and something few people qualify for yes yes I am I spent an Extra 10 years in school loser. And who said life was alll work this much make this pay it isn't you loser, becasue when you're in demand you want pay (Plus I am 35 and am saving up for my childrens school private to any university they want to go to)
Apparently those extra 10 years did not involve developing your reading skills.

Are you a millionaire? I was talking about millionaires and other assorted ultra-rich businessmen. Are you one of them? If not, then I'm on your side, you fool.

Oh, and as for your children, keep in mind that I support a system in which you wouldn't need to save up money in order to send them to a good school and university, because all education would be free.

You don't seem to understand just how insanely rich the rich actually are. The personal fortune of Bill Gates, for example, is greater than the entire national budgets of relatively wealthy countries, such as Egypt or Pakistan (who is a nuclear power, among other things).
So what?

The richest of the rich have more wealth than hundreds of millions of poor workers put together.
So what?

Sure, it may be hard to exploit your workers enough to gain a million dollars
Marxist nonsense.

... erm, I mean, it may be hard to "earn" a million dollars, but when you start claiming that you're working as hard as 100 million other people combined, it gets outright ridiculous.
No one but you is claiming that.

Since no one can possibly work harder than millions of ordinary people put together, it is common sense that the rich are far richer than they deserve.
No, it's not. Common sense, in fact, isn't.

Here, let me show you exactly what I mean. When people argue that a certain degree of inequality must exist, they don't seem to realize that capitalism causes enourmous inequality, far beyond any reasonable levels:
Reasonable according to what standard? Acceptible according to what standard?

So what?

So what?

[repeat ad nauseaum]
Sorry, I was under the impression that you were actually trying to make a rational argument.

But if all you're trying to say is "I don't give a f**k", then why are you here?

No one but you is claiming that.
Oh, so you admit that the rich did not work for their vast fortunes? Good. I finally meet an honest capitalist.

Marxist nonsense.
But wait a second. You agreed that the rich did not work for their immense wealth, correct? And if they didn't work for it, then obviously someone else did. So the logical conclusion is that the rich are exploiting that "someone else".

Are you following me so far?

No, it's not. Common sense, in fact, isn't.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. In this case, it is.

Unless you care to explain how someone can rightfully "earn" as much as a few million other hard working people put together.

Reasonable according to what standard? Acceptible according to what standard?
Heh, we all have our standards, don't we?
The standards that I use are derived from the natural distribution of "wealth" - that is, the distribution of food and other resources among the members of various animal species:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/antic/natdist.gif

Natural inequalities are tiny compared to the ones created by capitalism.

Capitalism is much better.

Socialism eliminates competition which eliminates the desire to succeed. It helps the losers of the world while those who earned a luxurious lifestyle are not permitted to live it.

The only thing it does good is holding down the 25 year old heirs to billions who are stupid and don't deserve it anyway and couldn't make it on their own.

I'm not sure how the europeans do unemployment, but I certainly know how the US numbers are derived. And...its complete bullshit.

5.6% is waaay too low. It only counts those on federal unemployment, which only lasts a short amount of time. I've read articles that state true unemployment is about 2-3 times that. One was about a county commish in Ohio that surveyed the population and found 17.5% unemployment. I'll try to find these sorces, and post them when I can.
they're wrong, and have been for a while, and just keep repeating the same misinformation. In truth, until the mid-1990's the US unemployment numbers only counted those on unemployment insurance, but not any more. (And technically there is no individual federal unemployment insurance, only state unemployment insurance most of which uses money collected by the federal government and given to the states for distribution by state unemployment insurace agencies run in accordance withfederal rules - sure the federal government collects the money, dispurses the money and sets the rules but it isn't a federal program.) The US BLS calculates the number of unemployed in a somewhat more generous manner than EURSTAT, meaning if the BLS used the same metrics as EURSTAT, the US unemployment rate would drop -ie the US could lower the 5.6% to 5.2% merely by dropping 16 year olds (not counted by EURSTAT) from their metric. Check out this fun site to see how the US calculates the unemployment number http://stats.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

Socialism eliminates competition which eliminates the desire to succeed.
How so? Do you have less of a desire to succeed if you can't hurt other people in the process?

And if co-operation and lack of competition are so bad, then why are ants the most successful insects on the planet? Why do wolves hunt in packs? etc.

Co-operation benefits the co-operating parties, whereas competition hurts the competing parties. Competition may, however, end up helping a third party which is not involved in the competition. That's how capitalism works. A and B compete, hurt each other, and C benefits. Therefore C believes that capitalism is great and wonderful, not realizing that everyone (himself included) would have more to gain by co-operating with the others.

It helps the losers of the world while those who earned a luxurious lifestyle are not permitted to live it.
The whole point is that the majority of those "losers" actually work hard all day to pay for the luxurious lifestyles of uber-rich capitalists who did not earn anything.

How many worker billionaires do you know? How many doctor billionaires? How many teacher billionaires? How many scientist billionaires? There are none. All the super-rich are big business owners.

Sorry, I was under the impression that you were actually trying to make a rational argument.
Funny--I had the same thought about you. Imagine that.

Y'see: all you did was present something AS IF it were bad. You never actually SHOWED why it was bad. That is...bad!


No one but you is claiming that.
Oh, so you admit that the rich did not work for their vast fortunes?
And how did you arrive that that erroneous conclusion?


Marxist nonsense.
But wait a second. You agreed that the rich did not work for their immense wealth, correct?
Nope. Didn't agree to that at all. Try again, smooth-brain.


No, it's not. Common sense, in fact, isn't.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. In this case, it is.
In this case, it's not.

Unless you care to explain how someone can rightfully "earn" as much as a few million other hard working people put together.
By working.

Would you care to explain to me why it is WRONG to earn that much? And saying that it's more than most other people earn is not showing that it is wrong. You take it for granted that it is wrong. That is called petittio principii--begging the question.


Reasonable according to what standard? Acceptible according to what standard?
Heh, we all have our standards, don't we?
The standards that I use are derived from the natural distribution of "wealth"
....which is naturally unequal. So why should there be equality of money?

Capitalism and socialism cannot be directly compared. Socialism is a social system while capitalism is an economic system.

That means capitalism can exist under several different social systems. But capitalism has bad conditions under socialism. So in the sense that it's difficult to endorse both at the same time, you can put them up against each other.

All governments that wants a degree of social wellfare need a strong economy to support this. This is also true for socialist governements. A good way of building a strong economy is endorsing capitalism. But in a controlled manner.

If you supress capitalism, like socialism does, you will supress the economy. This will hurt the wellfare system, and everybody loose. If you endorse capitalism, and have a social system that redirects some of the money into social wellfare, then everybody win.

The problem for socialists, however, are that under capitalism the rich win more than the poor. And socialists hate that, they hate differences. So instead they want things to be more equal, even if it means everybody loose.

When it comes to the socalled scnadinavian socialist paradises, or whatever they're called here, I live in one; Norway. Yes it's great. It's great being less than 5 million people, having an ocean filled with oil to export, having huge amounts of water falls to give cheap energy etc. Any government would do well under such conditions!

Norway came out on top on the UN report of the best nations to live in. The other nations that scored great where other scandinavian countries, and countries like canada and australia. What do all these nations have in common? Very few people compared to the land areal! That's what; few people and comparably lots of resources! Don't be fooled into thinking socialism is the great magic behind, because it ain't!

We have socialism for one reason: Too many hate the rich, and we can afford to!

Yes, I voted for capitalism!

Him becasue (because) he is a Socialist duh, his thing must be better, Psst I wonder if he has ever tryed (tried)working for a Million it's hard.

Yes, but am I working on something tougher hard and something few people qualify for yes yes I am I spent an Extra 10 years in school ,loser. And who said life was alll work this much make this pay it isn't you loser, becasue(because) when you're in demand you want pay (Plus I am 35 and am saving up for my children's school private (private schooling so they can go)to any university they want to go to)Ten years you say?

"Capitalism Or Socialism Which Is Better" - sounds like a well thought out discussion of the economics of the twenty-first century world to me.

Capitalist pigs...lol

As governments become more powerful, they naturally take over the economic systems and turn into socialism. USA is, really, a holdout of the old non centralized system i.e. capitalism, every man for himself. Socialism already exists in almost every country, where as capitalism is absent. Especially in democracies were people, most who are poor, get to vote, will socialism come about and its only a matter of time. :D

Interesting.... :eek:

Indeed. Interesting how the rabid ultracapitalists can provide little evidence to back up their idyllic claims that "hard work is all it takes", and then suddenly the "American Dream" will just show up one day because you toiled endlessly at less than a living wage, with no benefits, and little chance of advancement. Great idea, kiddies!

What I find laughable is how many people, at least in the NS world, are ardent ultracapitalists because they're bourgeois 13-year-olds who still live with Mommy and Daddy in suburbia.

I used to be a convinced capitalist, and even a right-winger. A short dose of the real world cured me of that rather quickly.

Bottom line, did anyone really expect this to be a decent discussion on the NS forums? Almost every thread of this nature devolves into "C4pital1zm = teh w1n!!!1shiftone" posted by the aformentioned 13-year-old sheltered, priveleged kiddies. This is just sad.

Indeed. Interesting how the rabid ultracapitalists can provide little evidence to back up their idyllic claims that "hard work is all it takes", and then suddenly the "American Dream" will just show up one day because you toiled endlessly at less than a living wage, with no benefits, and little chance of advancement. Great idea, kiddies!

What I find laughable is how many people, at least in the NS world, are ardent ultracapitalists because they're bourgeois 13-year-olds who still live with Mommy and Daddy in suburbia.

I used to be a convinced capitalist, and even a right-winger. A short dose of the real world cured me of that rather quickly.

Bottom line, did anyone really expect this to be a decent discussion on the NS forums? Almost every thread of this nature devolves into "C4pital1zm = teh w1n!!!1shiftone" posted by the aformentioned 13-year-old sheltered, priveleged kiddies. This is just sad.
How old are you? casue if you're younnger then 30 There is still hope. (psst, if you don't make more then 70,000 a year you are just lazy most likely.)

Indeed. Interesting how the rabid ultracapitalists can provide little evidence to back up their idyllic claims that "hard work is all it takes",
Who claims that?

and then suddenly the "American Dream" will just show up one day because you toiled endlessly at less than a living wage, with no benefits, and little chance of advancement. Great idea, kiddies!
Better than spreading the misery with collectivism.

What I find laughable is how many people, at least in the NS world, are ardent ultracapitalists because they're bourgeois 13-year-olds who still live with Mommy and Daddy in suburbia.
You'd be surprised at how wrong you are.

I used to be a convinced capitalist, and even a right-winger. A short dose of the real world cured me of that rather quickly.
Funny. A good dose of the real world has made me all the more capitalist.

WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE SMOKING!. Socialism is an economic pollicy, communism is the govermont. Capitilism is economic policy, democracy is the govermont. WEll maybe Im wrong and so are the New York State Schools but they are the best in the US which are the best in the World. And I voted capitilism cuz socialism doesnt work in practice. The working class gets taxed heavily and the poor people get everything free promoting poverty. Oh yes i am a 13 year old in suburbia but i dont do it cuz mommy and daddy do give me everything i do it cuz my knowledge of world history has proven that capitilstic societes survive longer and thrive.

Indeed. Interesting how the rabid ultracapitalists can provide little evidence to back up their idyllic claims that "hard work is all it takes", and then suddenly the "American Dream" will just show up one day because you toiled endlessly at less than a living wage, with no benefits, and little chance of advancement. Great idea, kiddies!

What I find laughable is how many people, at least in the NS world, are ardent ultracapitalists because they're bourgeois 13-year-olds who still live with Mommy and Daddy in suburbia.

I used to be a convinced capitalist, and even a right-winger. A short dose of the real world cured me of that rather quickly.

Bottom line, did anyone really expect this to be a decent discussion on the NS forums? Almost every thread of this nature devolves into "C4pital1zm = teh w1n!!!1shiftone" posted by the aformentioned 13-year-old sheltered, priveleged kiddies. This is just sad.
Way to go! Not a single argument pro socialism or against capitalism. Only bashing your imagined idea of what the opposition is like. (Why is this so often the socialists way of arguing?)

this is a question that begs being answered with a series of further questions:

is either of them worth a dam without barrowing some elements from the other?

are either in any way shape or manor indispensible?

and finaly what percentage of people flinging these labels arround actualy have the slightest idea what the heck the're
talking about in EITHER case?

=^^=
.../\...

As governments become more powerful, they naturally take over the economic systems and turn into socialism. USA is, really, a holdout of the old non centralized system i.e. capitalism, every man for himself. Socialism already exists in almost every country, where as capitalism is absent. Especially in democracies were people, most who are poor, get to vote, will socialism come about and its only a matter of time. :D

I give you: the WEF (http://www.weforum.org/), GATTS (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/serv_e.htm), TRIPS (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/trips_e.htm) and Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2004scc034.wpd.html). Capitalism has come to the point where it doesn't need governments anymore and is, bit by bit, reducing them to the level they started at: enforcers.

Vas.

and finaly what percentage of people flinging these labels arround actualy have the slightest idea what the heck the're
talking about in EITHER case?

I'll go out on a limb here and guess, based on your inability to recognize the need to make a choice rather than try to combine two completely different systems, you definitely don't.

Socialism, cause we do the work and pay the bosses to tell us what to do. Does that make sense to you? That goes for the bosses in our government too.

WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE SMOKING!. Socialism is an economic pollicy, communism is the govermont. Capitilism is economic policy, democracy is the govermont. WEll maybe Im wrong and so are the New York State Schools but they are the best in the US which are the best in the World. And I voted capitilism cuz socialism doesnt work in practice. The working class gets taxed heavily and the poor people get everything free promoting poverty. Oh yes i am a 13 year old in suburbia but i dont do it cuz mommy and daddy do give me everything i do it cuz my knowledge of world history has proven that capitilstic societes survive longer and thrive.

Umm...US schools aren't the best in the world.

Yeah, Jello's right. Our schools suck. Oh, BTW, Communism is an Economic system.

Him becasue he is a Socialist duh his thing must be better, Psst I wonder if he has ever tryed working for a Million its hard.
Well, ya I'm a Marxist, but this doesn't just come from from socialist ideology. It's about what is right and wrong (or should be anyway).

If you're religous then you should know that greed is a sin, and selfishness is not right. If you're not religous, then your conscience should tell you. It's just human nature to want to help people. And if you don't think so, then why do we send food and aid to poor people in Africa, or when someone crashs a car, people stop to help?

Not everyone can work for a million. And as I said, I don't feel that anyone needs that kind of money, so why should I. I want to help people, so I sacrifice my chances of making lots of money to teach high school physics and calculus because this country has a serious lack of good education problem, especially in these areas.

It's people like me that will change the world. We are the ones going into teaching. We will shape the minds of todays children while you're out there exploiting their parents. It will take time, but change takes time.

I know it's a bit late for a primer, but oh well.
Here is what Marx was thinking:

Marx's view of capitalism was that it was a rat race. That people where stuck in a mindset of individual survival. That people were not able to be as creative as they should be because they were in a situation that led to only minimal thoughts of their survival. That it didn't take a lot of creativity to survive. People were consumed by thoughts of paying rent, putting food on the table, and the other numerous thoughts and worries derived from the suffering of being a wage slave.

His thoughts were that if you end all of this, that people would be free to become more creative. And this more creative society would be able to invent things that no one had ever thought of before. That we, as a society could reach a higher level of consciousness. Freed from the chains of having to think individually, and working towards the common good of the society, Marx thought that we could become an enlightened society, and achieve a great amount of progress.

This is how he came up with socialism. A system that would free peoples minds and allow for a great improvement that would be the product from this greatly increased creativity power. He felt that instead of having your things, and my things, and the things of the person down the street, we would have "our" things. And that individually we could only produce a small amount for ourselves, but if we all work together, we could create much more for everyone and the good of the community.

It’s not an easy thing to grasp at first. We are stuck in the shackles of individual thought. We need to break through this and think differently. It takes some time to reach even part of this. It took me a few years but, once I was able to change my thought process and think in terms of working towards a common good for everyone, I was able to see what Marx was thinking.

Capitalism is the only moral economic system, because its underlying principle is that one's life and products of one's work belong to the individual.

Socialism's underlying principle is that one's life and work belong to the state, or to one's neighbors. This is simply slavery, and therefore socialism is inherently evil.

this is a question that begs being answered with a series of further questions:

is either of them worth a dam without barrowing some elements from the other?

are either in any way shape or manor indispensible?

and finaly what percentage of people flinging these labels arround actualy have the slightest idea what the heck the're
talking about in EITHER case?

=^^=
.../\...

Capitalism is indispensible because its basis is in individual freedom. Socialism is dispensible because its basis is slavery.

Asking if freedom (i.e., capitalism) is worth a damn without slavery (i.e., socialism) is like asking if food is worth a damn without a little poison in it.

Capitalism is the only moral economic system, because its underlying principle is that one's life and products of one's work belong to the individual.

Socialism's underlying principle is that one's life and work belong to the state, or to one's neighbors. This is simply slavery, and therefore socialism is inherently evil.
Blimey. There I was, using my brain to think about things in a logical manner, accounting for the multitudinous complexities of economic and political theory and you come along and crystallise it all in two concise and elegant sentences. No, hang on...

The latest incarnation of Ithuania / G Bugles?

Blimey. There I was, using my brain to think about things in a logical manner, accounting for the multitudinous complexities of economic and political theory and you come along and crystallise it all in two concise and elegant sentences. No, hang on...

The latest incarnation of Ithuania / G Bugles?

I don't know exactly what your "latest incarnation" innuendo means, but this account is the first and only one I have here. Phrasing your responses with the underlying premise that I am someone you have dealt with here before will lead you astray.

As for your response, it is, well...non-responsive. So you were thinking about all these complexities and enjoying my pithy comments. Then what happened? What are you trying to say? Can you say it directly so that even a simpleton like me can understand it? Or is it just too complicated for us common folk?

I don't know exactly what your "latest incarnation" innuendo means, but this account is the first and only one I have here. Phrasing your responses with the underlying premise that I am someone you have dealt with here before will lead you astray.
Your post was reminiscent of another poster from a while back, that's all.
As for your response, it is, well...non-responsive. So you were thinking about all these complexities and enjoying my pithy comments. Then what happened? What are you trying to say? Can you say it directly so that even a simpleton like me can understand it? Or is it just too complicated for us common folk?
Let's say that I get tired of reading comments in the vein of 'socialism is slavery and immoral and evil'. You're clearly not stupid, so why post in such absolute terms? This isn't an issue with clearly defined 'rights' and 'wrongs', there are very good reasons why there is such disagreement on principles here. It's frustrating to see someone trot out simplistic dogma when many people before them have put a lot of thought into their contributions, regardless of whether or not you or I agree with their conclusions.

Your post was reminiscent of another poster from a while back, that's all.

Let's say that I get tired of reading comments in the vein of 'socialism is slavery and immoral and evil'. You're clearly not stupid, so why post in such absolute terms? This isn't an issue with clearly defined 'rights' and 'wrongs', there are very good reasons why there is such disagreement on principles here. It's frustrating to see someone trot out simplistic dogma when many people before them have put a lot of thought into their contributions, regardless of whether or not you or I agree with their conclusions.

Like those posters before me whom you mention, there is a lot of thought behind my "simplistic dogma." I simply chose not to throw it all out there in my first post, choosing instead to voice my opinion on the question at hand and let those who wish explore it further. I have contemplated this question at length, read many books on the subject(s) involved, and had many discussions of them with people of all viewpoints. I'm sorry that my brevity resulted in frustration for you. If you wish to explore the complexities of this further, that would be great. However, making innuendo and snide comments will only obfuscate things.

To move forward: the reason I post in such absolute terms is because those are the conclusions I logically reach from examination of the question. Yes, sometimes things are absolute. Sometimes they are simpler than they seem at first glance. Why is it that firm conviction is equated with being "simplistic" (often a codeword for: unsophisticated, uneducated, narrow-minded)? What is it about my statements regarding capitalism and socialism that you find logically invalid?

Capitalism is indispensible because its basis is in individual freedom. Socialism is dispensible because its basis is slavery.

Asking if freedom (i.e., capitalism) is worth a damn without slavery (i.e., socialism) is like asking if food is worth a damn without a little poison in it.

Wow, how Orwellian is that? Freedom is slavery! Capitalism is based on exploitation, that's not freedom. Socialism is based on equality, that's not slavery. So, there ya go, you're got it arse over tit. Are you, by any chance, an American?

Vas.

Capitalism is the only moral economic system, because its underlying principle is that one's life and products of one's work belong to the individual.

True. Unfortuantely, it's usually the individual who owns the factory (or the field, or whatever).

Socialism's underlying principle is that one's life and work belong to the state, or to one's neighbors. This is simply slavery, and therefore socialism is inherently evil.

Socialism's underlying principle that the products of a worker's activity belong to the worker, which is the exact opposite of what you've written.

Really, you are an American, aren't you?

Vas.

Really, you are an American, aren't you?

Vas.

Yes, I am an American. What difference does that make, logically? Are you insinuating that all Americans are ignorant; that their statements are to be rejected out of hand, simply because they are Americans?

Capitalism is based on exploitation, that's not freedom.
Agreed. Especially the greed part of agreed.


Socialism is based on equality, that's not slavery.
I concur.

Capitalism by a long shot.

Capitalism of course.

Yes, I am an American. What difference does that make, logically? Are you insinuating that all Americans are ignorant; that their statements are to be rejected out of hand, simply because they are Americans?

Alas, it seems that the American education system has filled people so full of propaganda about socialism, the vast majority of you don't have a clue what it really is. Your Orwellian statements simply illustrate that. It's not meant to be an insult, particularly, it's just really easy to spot Americans spouting anti-pinko nonsense (a term only Americans would use).

Let me guess, you probably think liberalism is left wing as well, don't you?

Vas.

This is why I like Capitilism...

It gives the individual the right to use there inventivness.

Socialism, although a good idea for everyone to be equal, the only equality is the same level poverty to all citizens.

This is why I like Capitilism...

It gives the individual the right to use there inventivness.

Socialism, although a good idea for everyone to be equal, the only equality is the same level poverty to all citizens.

Oh shut up you idiot. A truly socialist system wouldn't be based on absolute equality, but equality of opportunity and an equal share of resources. How exactly would universal access to education make everyone poor? You'd have more scientists, more doctors, more people creating better ways of doing things. Remove the dependence on wage slaves, new and more efficient ways of working would be developed - right now they're not because people are cheaper. That would mean MORE opportunities for MORE individuals to use their inventiveness in MORE ways.

Vas.

Socialism, although a good idea for everyone to be equal, the only equality is the same level poverty to all citizens.
Socialism doesn't equal poverty. I refer you to posted link of natural weatlth distribution. Look carefully, and you'll see that 100% of the population is above the poverty line, something you'll never see in a capitalist system.

Actually, Socialism is a form of government AND an economic theory.

Many of you seem not to understand capitalism. It is where the economy is managed by a free market economy. This doesn't neccesarily mean anything about corporations. It means that the state doesn't control all means of production, transportation etc etc. It means that any ordinary joe can. I voted Socialism.

European Union Countries with unemployment rates lower than the US: ...Liechtenstein, ...

I can't believe you included Liechtenstein... what, do all 12 of them have jobs now? I have a hard time believing that the economy of a country the size of a town isn't nearly completely decided by its surrounding neighbors. Besides which... can you really accurately measure the economy of a nation that has problems with its offshore financial services being used to launder drug money? I'd love to help, but you're shooting yourself in the foot with this one. This is laughable.

Capitalism is the better choice. You can't get ahead in a socialistic society, becuase they take your product and spread it equally among people. Gee, doesn't that sound like theft? In a socialistic society, you don't have to go to work and you can still maintain a semi-productive life.

Originally Posted by Kneejistan
I'm not sure how the europeans do unemployment, but I certainly know how the US numbers are derived. And...its complete bullshit.

5.6% is waaay too low. It only counts those on federal unemployment, which only lasts a short amount of time. I've read articles that state true unemployment is about 2-3 times that. One was about a county commish in Ohio that surveyed the population and found 17.5% unemployment. I'll try to find these sorces, and post them when I can.
they're wrong...Check out this fun site to see how the US calculates the unemployment number http://stats.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
The fact that their "survey" is less than one 0.02048% (60,000) of the population (CIA: 293,027,571 (July 2004 est.) ) is a good indication that this isn't a reasonable sample of the poplulation. Probability alone should give some fluctuation. And...where is their margin of error? It's not an easy calculation, so I would take their numbers with a grain of salt.

Capitalism is the better choice. You can't get ahead in a socialistic society, becuase they take your product and spread it equally among people. Gee, doesn't that sound like theft? In a socialistic society, you don't have to go to work and you can still maintain a semi-productive life.

Be careful, Wolfenstein. You're about to be told to "shut up, you idiot!"

This is interesting...It's from the same site (http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm):

Numbers for June 2004
1st#: Not seasonally adjusted; 2nd #:Seasonally adjusted


U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of
the civilian labor force................................. 2.0 ;2.1

U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as
a percent of the civilian labor force.................... 2.6; 2.8

U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor
force (official unemployment rate)....................... 5.8; 5.6

U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent
of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers..... 6.1; 5.9

U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all
other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the
civilian labor force plus all marginally attached
workers.................................................. 6.7; 6.5

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers,
plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a
percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally
attached workers......................................... 9.8; 9.6



So, they even have numbers for what the unemployment numbers probably should be.