NationStates Jolt Archive

Reviveing an old thread but which? capitalism

A compromise.

A compromise.
Why is a free market better for some things but not others? Surely if it's superior it is superior for everything?

Socialism is a flawed concept. It removes the motivation for hard work. I sure as hell would work the bare minimum if there was no chance of my salary raising in any way. Socialism has never worked and never will.

Socialism is a flawed concept. It removes the motivation for hard work. I sure as hell would work the bare minimum if there was no chance of my salary raising in any way. Socialism has never worked and never will.Socialism is about raising your salary.

Why is a free market better for some things but not others? Surely if it's superior it is superior for everything?Not necessarily.

ummmm

Socialism is a government policy whereas capitalism is an economic policy

you can be a socialist capatilist. There are not like things.

Depends what you call "socialism". I get different answers from different people when I ask them that question. The question is too broad.

ummmm

Socialism is a government policy whereas capitalism is an economic policy

you can be a socialist capatilist. There are not like things.
I agree, although capitalism is anti-social. Therefore a socialist government will try to balance and limit capitalism, but there can be socialism and capitalism.

Socialism is about raising your salary.

Not exactly:

so·cial·ism
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Not exactly:

so·cial·ism
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

That's one of the reasons I dont like socialism. I don't trust the government to plan/control our economy well, especially if you've been watching the price of oil and all this corporate corruption that is being gotten away with

Not exactly:

so·cial·ism
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
That is communism, not socialism.
Anyway, The communal ownership of the means of production is benefiting the workers. We can say that their salary is increased when compared with the feudal and capitalist organisations.

That's one of the reasons I dont like socialism. I don't trust the government to plan/control our economy well, especially if you've been watching the price of oil and all this corporate corruption that is being gotten away withThose kind of things happen when corporations are granted more power than the democratic government.

That is communism, not socialism.
Anyway, The communal ownership of the means of production is benefiting the workers. We can say that their salary is increased when compared with the feudal and capitalist organisations.

Try to check your facts before guessing:

com·mu·nism
n.
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

Unless commonly accepted definitions are wrong, Socialism and Communism are pretty much the same thing.

Try to check your facts before guessing:

com·mu·nism
n.
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

Unless commonly accepted definitions are wrong, Socialism and Communism are pretty much the same thing.Whatever. I explained why the communal ownership of the means of productions benefit the worker (and raises his salary). Now you can call it however the fuck you want to call it.

IMO, the whole problem with socialism/communism is that it is based on the assumption that humans will have risen above our basuc instincts. Now maybe my definition is flawed and un true, but basically to me this whole theory of government is based on the governing body/people own everything and what you need is supplied by the state. And that (at least in my opinion) is one of the major flaws of this form of government because it totally disregards the inherent greed associated with man and his belongings in that he has what he needs but he still always wants. This, to me, is what holds communism/socialism back. It doesn't focus on what man is and work from there, it focuses on what man should be, maybe for the better, maybe not. I don't think communism/socialism will be successfully implemented until man strips away all his flaws and that looks to be a far way off.

Although I have my gripes against capitalism, the same as have been mentioned beforehand, I have to say that for me capitalism is still, at leats for now, the better system of government.

"Nuff said. :D

IMO, the whole problem with socialism/communism is that it is based on the assumption that humans will have risen above our basuc instincts. Now maybe my definition is flawed and un true, but basically to me this whole theory of government is based on the governing body/people own everything and what you need is supplied by the state. And that (at least in my opinion) is one of the major flaws of this form of government because it totally disregards the inherent greed associated with man and his belongings in that he has what he needs but he still always wants. This, to me, is what holds communism/socialism back. It doesn't focus on what man is and work from there, it focuses on what man should be, maybe for the better, maybe not. I don't think communism/socialism will be successfully implemented until man strips away all his flaws and that looks to be a far way off.

Although I have my gripes against capitalism, the same as have been mentioned beforehand, I have to say that for me capitalism is still, at leats for now, the better system of government.

"Nuff said. :DI don't understand that one. Are people not greedy in capitalism?

Of course people are greedy in capitalism. What I meant to say is that capitalism , IMO, realizes that while communism/socialism doesn't and that's what makes it flawed. Communism/Socialism recongnizes what man should be rather than what he is.

IMO, the whole problem with socialism/communism is that it is based on the assumption that humans will have risen above our basuc instincts. Now maybe my definition is flawed and un true, but basically to me this whole theory of government is based on the governing body/people own everything and what you need is supplied by the state. And that (at least in my opinion) is one of the major flaws of this form of government because it totally disregards the inherent greed associated with man and his belongings in that he has what he needs but he still always wants. This, to me, is what holds communism/socialism back. It doesn't focus on what man is and work from there, it focuses on what man should be, maybe for the better, maybe not. I don't think communism/socialism will be successfully implemented until man strips away all his flaws and that looks to be a far way off.

Although I have my gripes against capitalism, the same as have been mentioned beforehand, I have to say that for me capitalism is still, at leats for now, the better system of government.

"Nuff said. :D

Thats the problem with social/communism. The government is human, also, and they get greedy. They keep most of it to themselves and give out what they think is needed to the citizens (usually never enough).

Of course people are greedy in capitalism. What I meant to say is that capitalism , IMO, realizes that while communism/socialism doesn't and that's what makes it flawed. Communism/Socialism recongnizes what man should be rather than what he is.IMO it is the other way around.

Thats the problem with social/communism. The government is human, also, and they get greedy. They keep most of it to themselves and give out what they think is needed to the citizens (usually never enough).The government is not necessarily human though. It can be an organisation with balance checks. This is always better than letting the man with the most money decide.

"We need an economic system which, in contrast to Marxism, allows individuals to succeed in proportion to their capability and energy, but which, in contrast to capitalism, does not allow them to engage in socially or racially harmful activity, such as stifling competition, importing, outsourcing labor. We need to structure our economic system so that it cannot fall prey to the instability of capitalism. We need to maintain social flexibility, so that capable and energetic individuals always have the possibility of rising. We need to ensure that capital does not have the possibility of changing society's rules to suit itself. The way to achieve and maintain an economic system which meets these criteria is to design and govern the system subject to the supreme principle: the ultimate aim of all economic policy is racial progress. "

More is here:http://www.natall.com/what-is-na/na2.html#economic

there can be socialism and capitalism.

Yes, there can be both – it is called a “mixed economy”, and it is what most Western countries operate under. The debate is really (at least in these countries) how mixed the economy should be. Not many people really think that we should have one or the other.

My own opinion on the issue is that we should have a market-based (capitalist) economy that still looks out for those at the bottom. Public education and health care are essential, as are other basic services. No one should live in poverty, and everyone should have the opportunity to achieve success. However, the benefits of market-based economies are undeniable. The drive for profit makes people work harder, and by working harder more is achieved and produced in the economy (if everyone had a guaranteed job and/or the same wage, there would be little incentive to put effort into your job, or try to get a harder job). Unfortunately, money is the best incentive for productivity (violence, patriotism and religion are other contenders, but with differing levels of success and morality) and without productivity we would all be worse off.

This dialogue illustrates the Socialist/Capitalist debate:
Socialist: “It is unfair that big drug companies have cures for deadly diseases, but they sell them to dying people from third-world countries for hundreds of dollars, so only those who can afford them live. If they have the cure, they should share it! This is life and death we are talking about”
Capitalist: “Yes, but without the profit from these drugs, there would be no incentive for our top scientists to develop these medicines in the first place. Good will is just not strong enough to attract these intelligent people away from other profitable carers. At least this way some people will survive.”
Socialist: “Ok then, the Government should subsidise the medicines once they are discovered.”
Capitalist: “This would be very expensive, and if they did subsidise medicines this would have to come from our taxes. An increase in taxes means that the incentive to work decreases (because there is a lower reward). This would lower productivity and could result in negative growth, moving our country closer to the third-world country we are trying to help”.

Capitalism.

Why is a free market better for some things but not others? Surely if it's superior it is superior for everything?

Why is a hammer better than a screwdriver for some things, but not others. Surely if it's superior it is superior for everything?

If you think a market is superior "for everything," the burden of proof rests with you.

"We need an economic system which, in contrast to Marxism, allows individuals to succeed in proportion to their capability and energy, but which, in contrast to capitalism, does not allow them to engage in socially or racially harmful activity, such as stifling competition, importing, outsourcing labor. We need to structure our economic system so that it cannot fall prey to the instability of capitalism. We need to maintain social flexibility, so that capable and energetic individuals always have the possibility of rising. We need to ensure that capital does not have the possibility of changing society's rules to suit itself. The way to achieve and maintain an economic system which meets these criteria is to design and govern the system subject to the supreme principle: the ultimate aim of all economic policy is racial progress. "

More is here:http://www.natall.com/what-is-na/na2.html#economic
Excuse me but this link is complete bullshit if I may express my opinion.
It doesn't understand laissez-faire capitalism, marxism or the human nature.

Socialism is a flawed concept. It removes the motivation for hard work. I sure as hell would work the bare minimum if there was no chance of my salary raising in any way. Socialism has never worked and never will.

Whoever said that in socialism salaries would not vary? That's asinine.

My own opinion on the issue is that we should have a market-based (capitalist) economy that still looks out for those at the bottom. Public education and health care are essential, as are other basic services. No one should live in poverty, and everyone should have the opportunity to achieve success. However, the benefits of market-based economies are undeniable. The drive for profit makes people work harder, and by working harder more is achieved and produced in the economy (if everyone had a guaranteed job and/or the same wage, there would be little incentive to put effort into your job, or try to get a harder job). Unfortunately, money is the best incentive for productivity (violence, patriotism and religion are other contenders, but with differing levels of success and morality) and without productivity we would all be worse off.free market is not capitalism. Capitalism is an archaïc system where the owners enslave the workers.

Not exactly:

so·cial·ism
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

No, socialism is basically any system that tries to implement economic policies that produce the greatest overall social benefits.

This means that the specific content of socialism may vary over time, and from one place to another. In some times and places, a socialist might agree almost entirely with a capitalist economist. In others, the socialist will want to limit capitalism.

Note, in your definition above, that the government only often "plans and controls the economy."

In market socialism, you subsitute a market in consumer goods for central planning.

free market is not capitalism. Capitalism is an archaïc system where the owners enslave the workers.

No, Capitalism is a system whereby the market determines the outcomes of the economy. Yes, it is not always good. That is why we should, and do, live in a mixed economy.

Unless commonly accepted definitions are wrong, Socialism and Communism are pretty much the same thing.

Well... commonly accepted definitions are wrong. But that is because the uneducated are a lot more common than the well-educated. So the dictionary definition necessarily tends toward the uneducated opinion. Given that, I'll go with the definitions I learned in graduate school, thank you.

Socialism: Any economic system whose goal is the greatest social welfare.
Communism: A particular kind of socialism in which it is believed that "the greatest social welfare" will result from collective ownership and collective control over production.

No, Capitalism is a system whereby the market determines the outcomes of the economy. Yes, it is not always good. That is why we should, and do, live in a mixed economy.
But you don't deny some fat asses are doing nothing, tanning on the beach, buying big islands, snorting cocaïn while sitting on top of billions of dollars while some are working night and day and have trouble getting enough to eat, do you?
This is not the market. Those people are born with the capital, the others are born without.

Depends what you call "socialism". I get different answers from different people when I ask them that question. The question is too broad.

The fact that you get different answers from different people is a glaring example of rampant ignorance in the world today. There may be varying degrees of socialism, but whatever one's 'version' of socialism is, it all revolves around a few basic (and, arguably, inherently evil) tenets.

IMO, the whole problem with socialism/communism is that it is based on the assumption that humans will have risen above our basuc instincts.

Well, instead of using only your opinion, perhaps you should ask some socialists or communists what they think. Hey socialists or communists? Do you believe people have to rise above their basic instincts for socialism or communism to work? Here, I'll answer for them, being a socialist myself: No.

Now maybe my definition is flawed and un true, but basically to me this whole theory of government is based on the governing body/people own everything and what you need is supplied by the state.

Your definition is flawed and untrue. Or rather, you recognize a particular case and take it to be the whole, which it is not. What you describe is a particular example of communism. It is not the only example. (Moreover, I agree with you... it is a system that will probably never work -- at least not well.)

And that (at least in my opinion) is one of the major flaws of this form of government because it totally disregards the inherent greed associated with man and his belongings in that he has what he needs but he still always wants.

Well, I'm not really going to argue with you on this... but I will say it's a complicated question. You should notice that greedy and envious behavior appears to vary across cultures, so that even if it is inevitably "natural" in some form, a social system can, theoretically, take steps to minimize its effects. If you're interested in reading some of the best theory ever produced on the subject, check out Rousseau's First Discourse.


This, to me, is what holds communism/socialism back.

It may hold back the particular system you have described. But most socialists and communists envision a society in which it is human motivation to have and achieve as much as possible that drives the system. Communists, in fact, think that people will be more motivated once the limitations of this society are removed and they are free to explore their human potential in a variety of work roles.

It helps if you realize that money and material acquisition are not the only human motivations. They happen to be stressed out of all proportion under capitalism... but even here, when workers are polled about why they choose a certain job, "salary" or "wage" comes in around seventh on the list, after such things as the pleasantness of the work, the social aspects of work, hours, and so on.

It doesn't focus on what man is and work from there, it focuses on what man should be, maybe for the better, maybe not.

My version of socialism incorporates a bit of both. There are certain things that cannot be changed, yes. But there are also certain things that can be so much better, so much more free. And there is no reason to give up on them.

I don't think communism/socialism will be successfully implemented until man strips away all his flaws and that looks to be a far way off.

Then you don't understand socialism, or communism. In my opinion, capitalism will not be successfully implemented until... well, until "man strips away all his flaws..." And that looks to be a far off time indeed.

You see, you are right: human beings are greedy and selfish. Socialists want to deal with that fact, and attempt to construct a better society in and around it. Capitalists either give up on it, or encourage it.

But you don't deny some fat asses are doing nothing, tanning on the beach, buying big islands, snorting cocaïn while sitting on top of billions of dollars while some are working night and day and have trouble getting enough to eat, do you?
This is not the market. Those people are born with the capital, the others are born without.

Of course there are. That is because, as you say, they are bourn with money and others are not. This is exactly my reason for advocating a mixed economy where everyone has the opportunity to succeed (and therefore why we need a good public education and health system). The ‘elites’ you mentioned are rich because either they, or someone who gave them their money, at one stage worked hard and took advantage of a market. They possibly exploited their workers (or others) and that is not good. Pure capitalism has its problems. However, these people are rich because of the market, even if indirectly.

No, Capitalism is a system whereby the market determines the outcomes of the economy.

Wrong. Capitalism is a system based on private ownership of the means of production.

Capitalism, although it usually produces a market in consumer goods, need not. Imagine the marginal case in which one person owns everything (or, for that matter, the more limited monopolistic case in which one firm dominates a particular sector of the economy).

Socialism, too, can employ either authoritative allocation of resources, or market allocation.

I prefer market socialism.

Of course there are. That is because, as you say, they are bourn with money and others are not. This is exactly my reason for advocating a mixed economy where everyone has the opportunity to succeed (and therefore why we need a good public education and health system). The ‘elites’ you mentioned are rich because either they, or someone who gave them their money, at one stage worked hard and took advantage of a market. They possibly exploited their workers (or others) and that is not good. Pure capitalism has its problems. However, these people are rich because of the market, even if indirectly.The problem is not the market. The problem is that some people are working for other people. Those other people are doing nothing. That is the problem. You talk about hard work, but the people working the most hard are not the most rewarded. Those rewarded are those who own. Work is not the best way to make money, buying stock shares is. When you buy stock shares, you buy the work of workers, who will work for you while you tan on the beach snorting cocaïn. That is the problem.
I don't object to free market so long as you don't sell capital (stock shares for instance) (goods and services are ok on the free market though).

Wrong. Capitalism is a system based on private ownership of the means of production.

Capitalism, although it usually produces a market in consumer goods, need not. Imagine the marginal case in which one person owns everything (or, for that matter, the more limited monopolistic case in which one firm dominates a particular sector of the economy).

Socialism, too, can employ either authoritative allocation of resources, or market allocation.

I prefer market socialism.

Well, even if a single company is in a monopoly situation, they are still operating in a “market”, and they are still limited by the demand for the good, and the price people are willing to pay. I agree completely that monopolies are, however, not good, because it gives companies too much power. Although back to the definition, a monopoly is still a market, and the market ultimately determines the price and quantity sold. A monopolistic situation is also still a market, just a cross between a monopoly and a free market.

As for market socialism, I don’t know much about this theory.

I think I should say some things here...

Socialism: The Government subsidises all major industries, provides free health care, education, welfare. Though there is still a small market for mom and pop stores.

Capatilism: Big huge corporation are allowed to prosper, with little or no laws stopping them.

And socialism has worked, ever heard of Denmark?

Yet I like Capatilism, because I personally like the huge corporation that made my X-Box...

I think I should say some things here...

Socialism: The Government subsidises all major industries, provides free health care, education, welfare. Though there is still a small market for mom and pop stores.

Capatilism: Big huge corporation are allowed to prosper, with little or no laws stopping them.

And socialism has worked, ever heard of Denmark?

Yet I like Capatilism, because I personally like the huge corporation that made my X-Box...However the X-Box would not exist without the state funding research on computer science.

However the X-Box would not exist without government funding research on computer science.

Don't start a debate over the X-Box :P

But seriously, fine. But you really think that the Government will make the X-Box?

A monopolistic situation is also still a market, just a cross between a monopoly and a free market.

In a very narrow sense, perhaps. But if a market is the area of economic activity in which buyers and sellers come together and the forces of supply and demand affect prices, then a monopoly hardly amounts to a true market, since supply is determined authoritatively. It amounts to the same thing when a government decides how much to produce... there is no competitive market forcing their hand.

As for market socialism, I don’t know much about this theory.

You should definitely look into it. I have to admit that I came into the discussion of socialism/communism/capitalism with many of the same misconceptions as posters here. I tended toward communism, and blindly fought the very good arguments against it as best I could, like many posters here.

Then in grad school I had some good courses in political economy, and learned what the market is really about -- what it does well, as well as what it doesn't do so well. But I also learned that the market isn't tied to capitalism any more than capitalism is tied to democracy (in that other great ideological myth of the 20th century). I was "sold" on market socialism.

Don't start a debate over the X-Box :P

But seriously, fine. But you really think that the Government will make the X-Box?
Well people will make the X-box. I just think it will be better quality, faster and with a lot more games when it is focused on the consumer instead of profits.

Well people will make the X-box. I just think it will be better quality, faster and with a lot more games when it is focused on the consumer instead of profits.

We all can dream...

We all can dream...
And we can act as well.

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
- Winston Churchill

If people weren't as corrupt and greedy as they are, and CARED about STUFF, socialism would r0x0rz s0x0rz.

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
- Winston Churchill

If people weren't as corrupt and greedy as they are, and CARED about STUFF, socialism would r0x0rz s0x0rz.

I like that saying...

And we can act as well.

Maybe tomorrow, I'm playing my X-Box :P *rimshot*

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
- Winston Churchill

If people weren't as corrupt and greedy as they are, and CARED about STUFF, socialism would r0x0rz s0x0rz.Any system would work in this case.

The problem is not the market. The problem is that some people are working for other people. Those other people are doing nothing. That is the problem. You talk about hard work, but the people working the most hard are not the most rewarded. Those rewarded are those who own. Work is not the best way to make money, buying stock shares is. When you buy stock shares, you buy the work of workers, who will work for you while you tan on the beach snorting cocaïn. That is the problem.
I don't object to free market so long as you don't sell capital (stock shares for instance) (goods and services are ok on the free market though).

I agree that people do make money from doing nothing but buying the right shares. (However, I point out that you are generalising when you say that all bosses are tanning themselves and doing nothing but drugs. Most bosses and owners work very hard). Unfortunately, someone has to take charge in a large group and therefore people have to work for one another. We could not operate otherwise. This is why we have leaders (such as Presidents and Prime Ministers, depending on where you live). This same principle applies in business, without leaders and the market business would fail.

The only defence I can make of your time wasting shareholders is that the capital for businesses had to come from somewhere, without it no business would grow, and neither would our economy. Also, they had to get the money from somewhere in the first place and this would have had to come through someone working at some point. However, I agree, they are essentially getting something for nothing, which in fact goes against sensible economic theory, and against the foundations of capitalism, even though it is a result of capitalism. Remember, though, that this is only one result of capitalism.

The leftist version of the KKK...

The Comrande Commies Clan...

*rimshot*

I'll go now.

I agree that people do make money from doing nothing but buying the right shares. (However, I point out that you are generalising when you say that all bosses are tanning themselves and doing nothing but drugs. Most bosses and owners work very hard). Unfortunately, someone has to take charge in a large group and therefore people have to work for one another. We could not operate otherwise. This is why we have leaders (such as Presidents and Prime Ministers, depending on where you live). This same principle applies in business, without leaders and the market business would fail.Here you are confusing bosses with owners. Bosses are working. Owners are not. The presidents and the prime ministers are supposed to work.

The only defence I can make of your time wasting shareholders is that the capital for businesses had to come from somewhere, without it no business would grow, and neither would our economy. Also, they had to get the money from somewhere in the first place and this would have had to come through someone working at some point. However, I agree, they are essentially getting something for nothing, which in fact goes against sensible economic theory, and against the foundations of capitalism, even though it is a result of capitalism. Remember, though, that this is only one result of capitalism.
The wealth of the owners comes from the nobility before the revolution. That revolution replaced one class system with another.
The poors will stay poor because they have no access to the capital.

I think you are mistaken about the foundations of capitalism. It's all about the capital. It has nothing to do with free market.

The leftist version of the KKK...

The Comrande Commies Clan...

*rimshot*

I'll go now.
Communists are not necessarily racist or violent. Most of them are not.

A compromise.


Yup its best to use philosphies of both to run a country. This is an unfair poll.

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
- Winston Churchill

If people weren't as corrupt and greedy as they are, and CARED about STUFF, socialism would r0x0rz s0x0rz.


Nice accurate saying. Its a matter of corruption that can destroy both systems.

In a very narrow sense, perhaps. But if a market is the area of economic activity in which buyers and sellers come together and the forces of supply and demand affect prices, then a monopoly hardly amounts to a true market, since supply is determined authoritatively. It amounts to the same thing when a government decides how much to produce... there is no competitive market forcing their hand.

I agree, it is not a good market. A “good” market need many competitors. I was simply pointing out that the forces of supply and demand are still at play in this situation, even if they are not achieving an acceptable outcome for consumers as well as the company.


You should definitely look into it. I have to admit that I came into the discussion of socialism/communism/capitalism with many of the same misconceptions as posters here. I tended toward communism, and blindly fought the very good arguments against it as best I could, like many posters here.

Then in grad school I had some good courses in political economy, and learned what the market is really about -- what it does well, as well as what it doesn't do so well. But I also learned that the market isn't tied to capitalism any more than capitalism is tied to democracy (in that other great ideological myth of the 20th century). I was "sold" on market socialism.

Sounds interesting, but again, I can’t really say anything about it without studying the theory.

While the market isn't tied to capitalism, capitalism is tied to the market, that is my point

Communists are not necessarily racist or violent. Most of them are not.

I know that, most of my friends are commies.

I meant, that the KKK is very right wing, the CCC would be very left wing...

you are confusing bosses with owners. Bosses are working. Owners are not.

Yes, but many owners are bosses and do work, and even those who don't work probably did at one point.

The wealth of the owners comes from the nobility before the revolution. That revolution replaced one class system with another.
The poors will stay poor because they have no access to the capital.

Yes, in some cases maybe, but not all the time.

I think you are mistaken about the foundations of capitalism. It's all about the capital. It has nothing to do with free market.

I was simply saying that getting something for nothing goes against economics. However, capitalism is about the free market, maybe not exclusively, but they are interlinked.

And to think I almost got 'Back in the USSR' out of my head.

Flew in from Miami beach BOAC,
Didn't get to be-ed last night.
Came in with the paper bag on my knee,
Ma-an what a dreadfull flight.

I'M BACK IN THE U S S R! [ Da dun dun dun ]

You don't know how lucky you arr' boy,
BACK IN THE U S S R!

-Sob-

Yes, but many owners are bosses and do work, and even those who don't work probably did at one point.

Yes, in some cases maybe, but not all the time.

I was simply saying that getting something for nothing goes against economics. However, capitalism is about the free market, maybe not exclusively, but they are interlinked.Capitalism can work without the free market.
For a start, freedom is relative, therefore a free market is relative. The market is natural and does always exist. It is more or less free.
Communism can have a very free market of goods and services.
In capitalism, the market of capital can be more free or less free as well.

Try to check your facts before guessing:

com·mu·nism
n.
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

Unless commonly accepted definitions are wrong, Socialism and Communism are pretty much the same thing.

turns out that commonly accepted definitions - especially of political and economic ideas, especially in in america - are often flat out wrong. good thing other dictionaries are better, no? for example, the compact oed says that communism is

"a political and social system whereby all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs."

which isn't exactly right either, but not a bad attempt for a one sentence summary of a fairly complex topic.

that "common definition" of your's is mostly cold war propaganda and ignorance equating the alleged dictatorship of the proletariat with the end-state it claims to be after. what did the second 's' in ussr stand for (or to use the russian transliteration, the third one in sssr)? what system do the chinese claim to be operating under?

Capitalism can work without the free market.
For a start, freedom is relative, therefore a free market is relative. The market is natural and does always exist. It is more or less free.
Communism can have a very free market of goods and services.
In capitalism, the market of capital can be more free or less free as well.

If you have a free market, people will always take advantage of opportunities presented in it. This is capitalism. If you don’t have a free market, a black market will inevitably develop (as you said, markets are natural), and again people will take advantage of opportunities presented in this market.

I agree that communism can have a free market of goods and services, the market isn't tied to capitalism, but communist systems will always be less efficient and less productive than capitalist systems because of the decreased drive for profits (which as I said is the most powerful incentive in our world).

Anyway, I must sign off now, it is 2:15 AM my time. Nice chatting.

Why is a free market better for some things but not others? Surely if it's superior it is superior for everything?

I'm all for capitalism, but you might as well say, "Surely if a hammer is superior for driving nails into wood, it's also superior for brushing your teeth."

Anyway, I must sign off now, it is 2:15 AM my time. Nice chatting.
-Whilst I finish my lunch-

Eastern Standard Time !$|-| +3|-| 1337

If you have a free market, people will always take advantage of opportunities presented in it. This is capitalism. If you don’t have a free market, a black market will inevitably develop (as you said, markets are natural), and again people will take advantage of opportunities presented in this market.

I agree that communism can have a free market of goods and services, the market isn't tied to capitalism, but communist systems will always be less efficient and less productive than capitalist systems because of the decreased drive for profits (which as I said is the most powerful incentive in our world).

Anyway, I must sign off now, it is 2:15 AM my time. Nice chatting.
There are more incentive to work in communism than in capitalism though.
In capitalism there is incentive to buy stock shares or to rebel but not that much incentive for working.

I think you confuse free market and capitalism.

This is truly an unfair argument.
First: definitions are the truth of what something is supposed to be. If you asked me to give you the definition of an addict, I could. If you asked me to point out someone that was was nothing more than that definition I couldn't. An economy, and a system of government, is influenced by so many variables that, I feel, there can never be one true definition of it's type. Even a broad approach at defining something like this falls short. I think the better question isn't which one is better; it's which one would you choose to live under, by it's common definition alone, if you had no other choice? I think that better debates the merits/faults of both. debate the terms and concepts, but not how some try to practice it.
As for me, I don't like the idea of socialism as i've come to see it applied in the world around me. I've seen a lot of things under the banner of socialism that bother me. healthcare for everyone? why? the earth is overpopulated as it is. And there are certain people out there that don't want to go on living, so why prevent them from dying? And why should the burden of support fall on the citizen? I've often wondered as I write my quarterly tax checks how much of it is going to some crack-addicted mother who is popping out future criminals with no parental guidance or love in their future? I'd rather have the money go to forced sterilization for the convicted felon. I'm not up to speed on international laws, but I do know they can't vote in the US. What makes them any better at making a decision about breeding? And I don't feel that equality is achievable due to human nature. If I bust my ass and do the best job possible, I should be rewarded with money and praise. If I do a half-assed job I should be rewarded with absolutly nothing. I can't count how many times i've heard people with no job say they wouldnt work at a fast food chain. Why? If it brings you an income you should be thankful. there is no work beneath you when you are unemployed. I ran a division of a company that was downsized last year. was I qualified to do something of equal or better income and responsibility? yes. Were jobs of that nature available on my last day? no. So I went and got a job as a receptionist at a health club until I found something that was at a level that i found challenging and rewarding. I neve collected unemployment, because with in 24 hours of leaving one job, i had already secured another. To me, socialism takes away your drive to take life into your own hands. it alows you to let somebody else support your ass, and breeds laziness and complacency. Uggh....i can't go on. i'd rather watch some heroin addict in an alley behind a state-run rehab clinic he/she just walked out of die from overdose again.

Unless commonly accepted definitions are wrong, Socialism and Communism are pretty much the same thing.

I would say it really depends on the definition one uses. I think the above is very much a common American perception of socialism and communism. However, the USA often has different meanings for such things, the biggest example being the use of the word 'liberal' in this forum, which completely differs from the meaning of the word in Europe (maybe not UK, but the rest). Here a liberal is not left-wing. Typically they are in the centre or centre-right.
So, it all depends on definitions.

Personally, if the choice was between pure capitalism and pure socialism, I would choose socialism. But the purest form of either probably wouldn't make a pleasant society to live in. I prefer living in a market economy based society, with sensible social democratic regulation and provisions.

The true difference between the two forms is a psychological one. In the "Pure" socialist system, the emphasis is on positive reenforcement. It seeks to have people do their best because of pride and praise. The monetary reward isn't there as much as in a capitalistic system, so the real reward is the feeling of accomplishment.

The focus of capitalism is negative reenforcement. If you don't do your best, you don't get anywhere and you suffer financial loss. Since everything revolves around how much you have, having less is bad, so people want to do well to have more.

Ask any clinical psychologist which type of reenforcement works better and you will get the answer of which system is better. But be warned, psychologists seem as split on this issue as this board is on the political systems.

A few people earlier brought Communism into the fray. If anything, that (when practiced in the exact manner with which Marx said it should be) is the best system to have, economically. Why? Because it has all the benefits of Capitalism, but there is also increased incentive, because ownership of the means of production is collective.

When practiced the way Marx said it should be, it is a Democracy (not what the US calls a democracy, but a real one, where in order to make a decision, everyone gathers together to make it). So basically, it is like Capitalism, (where a person succeeds because of their own ambition and innovation) but at the same time, everyone takes part in the process (because the benefits of capitalism affect only those who own the means of production, and since the workers do, everyone can be rich!!!)

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
- Winston Churchill


"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes ... to spread a lively terror- Winston Churchill"

He also said that Mussolini had "rendered a service to the whole world", showing as it had "a way to combat subversive forces" .

Possibily not the person I'd choose to hold up as an authority.

Socialism is about raising your salary.

It's about raising your salary unless your job would pay more under a capitalist gov. than the amount your given by the government under socialism.

It's about raising your salary unless your job would pay more under a capitalist gov. than the amount your given by the government under socialism.No it is about raising the salary of all workers and suppressing the reward of the capital.

That's one of the reasons I dont like socialism. I don't trust the government to plan/control our economy well, especially if you've been watching the price of oil and all this corporate corruption that is being gotten away with


Here here! I think rural electrification and the interstate highway system are the ONLY U.S. government programs that have been successful in the long run.

And I'm not sure if rural electrification is right either. It was an awful big boost to one industry by the governement. Maybe the government should have let the power companies wire the nation themselves.

I think you confuse free market and capitalism.

??? These are not the same?

??? These are not the same?
No. Take a look at a few ideas by Lysander Spooner (iirc, he is pro-free market but anti-capitalist).

The free-market is exactly what it says on the tin.

Capitalism is a harder concept where the definition will differ from person to person. AnCaps will say that it really should be called Mercantilism, 'socialists' say that it is exploitation by capital.

Here here! I think rural electrification and the interstate highway system are the ONLY U.S. government programs that have been successful in the long run.

And I'm not sure if rural electrification is right either. It was an awful big boost to one industry by the governement. Maybe the government should have let the power companies wire the nation themselves.
What about the NASA?
And BTW, do you trust corporations more?

??? These are not the same?No.
Capitalism is about the private ownership of the capital.
Free market is about the freedom to exchange.

Arguably, the free market of the capital is more present in capitalism.
But this is only the market of capital, not goods and services. This has been twisted by the capitalist propaganda. Nowadays, when people talk about the market they usually talk about the stock shares. However the market of capital is not the only market.
There is a market of goods as well (a big instance is the car market). This one does not need a private ownership of capital.

In my opinion, when you buy a car, you do no harm. When you buy a stock share of a car manufacturer, you exploit the workers.