NationStates Jolt Archive

Would you please stop imagining that Democracy keeps the government and the people inseparable? That is fairy tale thinking that would not happen in real life no matter what economic system you would like to impose.

The government will always be separated from the people, and the only things that keep the government responsible to the people are those things that the people do not turn over.

No comments on this?

It's the principle reason why socialism will fail....

It's the principle reason why capitalism is necessary to maintain democracy....

anybody?

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying. Most socialists nowadays don't advocate a completely socialistic economy; we know that that will fail. What we normally advocate is combining the best aspects of both, which we believe is most stable without leaving behind the poor and incapable. The US is close to this, but it hasn't reached that yet, and will fall behind if Social Security is privatized.

Will you please stop imagining that America is a capitalist state? We're no more capitalist than Denmark is socialist. Pretty much every industrialized nation in the world ("first-world" is out of vogue, right?) is a tempering of capitalist enterprise and socialist programs. If you don't believe it, I can provide a very long list of socialist features of the U.S. government and of capitalist aspects of the Danish government.

Also, please stop implying that we are a democracy.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying. Most socialists nowadays don't advocate a completely socialistic economy; we know that that will fail. What we normally advocate is combining the best aspects of both, which we believe is most stable without leaving behind the poor and incapable. The US is close to this, but it hasn't reached that yet, and will fall behind if Social Security is privatized.

If you advocate the private ownership of capital you are a capitalist, if you support the public ownership of capital you are a socialist.

They are mutually exclusive.

If you advocate the private ownership of capital you are a capitalist, if you support the public ownership of capital you are a socialist.

They are mutually exclusive.
No they're not; just ask our Poland forgetting friend, here. He has the facts at hand to disprove you; I don't.

If you advocate the private ownership of capital you are a capitalist, if you support the public ownership of capital you are a socialist.

They are mutually exclusive.

Aha you forget, NOTHING is mutually exclusive! I'm a neo-anarchist communo-syndicationalist capitalist socialist! :D

Will you please stop imagining that America is a capitalist state? We're no more capitalist than Denmark is socialist. Pretty much every industrialized nation in the world ("first-world" is out of vogue, right?) is a tempering of capitalist enterprise and socialist programs. If you don't believe it, I can provide a very long list of socialist features of the U.S. government and of capitalist aspects of the Danish government.

Also, please stop implying that we are a democracy.

This is not about geopolitics, no matter how you want to put it. Both Denmark and America are capitalist, they rely on the free market and have private ownership of capital.

Vittos, what you're doing here is setting up the definitions of the terms in a way that proves your initial statements. I can't attack your claim if I accept your definition as "state control" vs. "private control," but it so happens that not many folks accept those absolute definitions.

Go read up on "Market Socialism."

In another thread, some doofus referred to the "Nordic nations" as a bastion of socialism. They do not advocate state control of property, there's lots of individual successes and failures in these nations and, while they pay higher taxes and while the lower end of their socioeconomic strata is not so low as ours, there are still rich and poor people in Scandanavia. They are rewarded for their work and they own property, so by your model, they still have a stake in the govt.

I live under a fairly socialist government (Provincially) and they simply control too much. There has been corruption and stealing of tax payer dollars and people are only getting a slap on the wrist. The people themselves are very nice and friendly but shoudl not be in charge of a million people.

Both Denmark and America are capitalist, they rely on the free market and have private ownership of capital.
Free market was the thing where one nations raises tarriffs and complains bitterly when others do the same, right?

No they're not; just ask our Poland forgetting friend, here. He has the facts at hand to disprove you; I don't.


Capitalism:

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Socialism:

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.

OR

The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.


The point of my original post is that the second definition of socialism provided is impossible. With that said the only viable definition left is the first one, and it is the opposite of definition of capitalism.

Free market was the thing where one nations raises tarriffs and complains bitterly when others do the same, right?

No, that is protectionist politics.

Vittos, what you're doing here is setting up the definitions of the terms in a way that proves your initial statements. I can't attack your claim if I accept your definition as "state control" vs. "private control," but it so happens that not many folks accept those absolute definitions.

It is impossible to set up something in between "state control" and "private control", when you come up with an entity that is neither government or citizenry then we can talk.

Go read up on "Market Socialism."

I have been enlightened, and it still gives government too much control and eliminates too much profit incentive.

In another thread, some doofus referred to the "Nordic nations" as a bastion of socialism. They do not advocate state control of property, there's lots of individual successes and failures in these nations and, while they pay higher taxes and while the lower end of their socioeconomic strata is not so low as ours, there are still rich and poor people in Scandanavia. They are rewarded for their work and they own property, so by your model, they still have a stake in the govt.

You are right, he was a doofus, the "Nordic nations" are all capitalistic.

What I'm saying is that, as the terms are used today, neither capitalism nor socialism serve to aptly describe the M.O. of most nations.

This is why "socialism" is not a single monolithic thing. What do you do with a Denmark or an America, where the government owns some capital and the private population owns some capital? I don't know about your neck of the woods, but here, the government, through the Port Authority, owns and operates Newark, La Guardia, and JFK. That's government control of capital. Even according to the inassailable dictionary.com, that puts the U.S. in the lurch between socialist and capitalist.

This is why there are concepts like "market socialism," to describe how Marx's initial formulation, while an absolute form of socialism, is not the only way socialism is put into practice.

So if you want to argue about the success or failure of the absolute concept of socialism, your initial claim might be half correct. But it also puts you on the difficult ground of having to defend the pure formulation of capitalism as being amenable to democracy. Which, as demonstrated by early-century, pre-regulation big biz in America, it ain't.

re: Posts 1 and 2

Amen. Sooner or later people would get tired of the government telling them what to do... would get tired of depending on government for everything.

Except for the lazy people, of course. hehe

If we get socialized medicine... it'll be just one more excuse for people not to work.. and our unemployment would double and rival that of many liberal european countries.

re: Posts 1 and 2

Amen. Sooner or later people would get tired of the government telling them what to do... would get tired of depending on government for everything.

Except for the lazy people, of course. hehe

If we get socialized medicine... it'll be just one more excuse for people not to work.. and our unemployment would double and rival that of many liberal european countries.

See, this is what bugs me. I'm not pro-socialism, but I think certain social programs (like health care and social security) make a lot of sense. I believe that these are noble goals and that it is one responsibility, being members of a civilized nation, that we prevent suffering and poverty where possible. Denying someone health care because "they didn't work hard enough" is ridiculous. Especially given how those who do "work hard enough" to afford their blue cross/blue shield are the guys who own and manage the Wal*Marts and Taco Bells, while the "lazy slobs" are the guys staffing those stores and essentially providing for the wealth of the top 5%. Are these workers the best and the brightest? Probably not. Do they deserve inadequate medical care or death in poverty? I don't think so.

It bothers me that people argue against these programs because they link socialized programs with some bent conception of Marxist scientific socialism. This isn't 1920, this isn't 1950, we don't need to be terrified of social programs as the "Red threat." Look at America: The federal highways are a socialist venture, state colleges are a socialist venture. The question isn't whether America has socialist programs, but which ones we hold important. Social Security and Medicare ought to be held important.

re: Posts 1 and 2

Amen. Sooner or later people would get tired of the government telling them what to do... would get tired of depending on government for everything.

Except for the lazy people, of course. hehe

If we get socialized medicine... it'll be just one more excuse for people not to work.. and our unemployment would double and rival that of many liberal european countries.

I don't particularly agree with you. I believe there is a right to healthcare and a basic standard of living. Saying that if the government provides a poverty line that the would maintiain for people would cause people to not work is ridiculous.

What I'm saying is that, as the terms are used today, neither capitalism nor socialism serve to aptly describe the M.O. of most nations.

This is why "socialism" is not a single monolithic thing. What do you do with a Denmark or an America, where the government owns some capital and the private population owns some capital? I don't know about your neck of the woods, but here, the government, through the Port Authority, owns and operates Newark, La Guardia, and JFK. That's government control of capital. Even according to the inassailable dictionary.com, that puts the U.S. in the lurch between socialist and capitalist.

This is why there are concepts like "market socialism," to describe how Marx's initial formulation, while an absolute form of socialism, is not the only way socialism is put into practice.

So if you want to argue about the success or failure of the absolute concept of socialism, your initial claim might be half correct. But it also puts you on the difficult ground of having to defend the pure formulation of capitalism as being amenable to democracy. Which, as demonstrated by early-century, pre-regulation big biz in America, it ain't.

Let's not kid ourselves and say that the US is not 90% capitalistic. The only reason that the government controls those airports is because it facilitates the economy, but it is too awkward and expensive for single corporations to control. The only reason we have socialist policies is to serve as boundaries for capitalism, which if allowed to go on uncontrolled would collapse itself due to economies of scale.

Vittos, you just went up a notch in my book. The only reason I jumped into this thread is because it seemed to be the sort of line that--while not necessarily equating "socialism bad" with "social programs bad"--feeds the misconception that socialized medicine will make us soft like the lazy europeans, because socialism is by definition an evil.

EDIT: Er, this was to the post two up, not the one directly above.

The theory behind Market Socialism calls for government control of those industries that are precisely too bulky or too important for private management. Like airports. I'm not quibbling over how socialized the U.S. govt. is, I know it ain't much, but it is. I'm invoking the one-drop rule to indicate that the U.S. isn't truly capitalist according to dictionary.com's line. Granted, there ain't much that's governmentally owned, but it is more than a drop (I'll cite more besides port authority, highways, and state universities, if you really want).

I think I see what the problem here is: we're arguing over personal definitions of socialism and capitalism. Vittos sees it one way, we're misinterpreting him, and we're debating; we're not going to get anywhere either.

Vittos, you just went up a notch in my book. The only reason I jumped into this thread is because it seemed to be the sort of line that--while not necessarily equating "socialism bad" with "social programs bad"--feeds the misconception that socialized medicine will make us soft like the lazy europeans, because socialism is by definition an evil.

Yes, it seems we agree for the most part.

I am a classic liberal, where as I think the most important job of government should be to protect the rights of the person.

I disagree with socialism as an economic function because I believe it is inefficient, but I also disagree with it as is strips a great deal of our own power to protect our rights.

I wouldn't call it bad, as its main goal is commendable, but I would call it misguided as it seems to be a "frying pan and into the fire" sort of thing.

Well, in that case, I suppose I also agree, in the sense that mostly what I support are socialistic programs rather than the economic system itself. That, and somewhat higher taxes, but on the wealthy, not the common folk. And lower military spending.

The theory behind Market Socialism calls for government control of those industries that are precisely too bulky or too important for private management. Like airports. I'm not quibbling over how socialized the U.S. govt. is, I know it ain't much, but it is. I'm invoking the one-drop rule to indicate that the U.S. isn't truly capitalist according to dictionary.com's line. Granted, there ain't much that's governmentally owned, but it is more than a drop (I'll cite more besides port authority, highways, and state universities, if you really want).

That I can agree with, for the reason that it helps facilitate a free market.

I see, when market socialism was explained to me, it was explained as government control over the major industries, with small local economies maintained by the private industry.

I guess that I should say that I am not totally capitalist, where as I am more a supporter of the free market.

Holy crap! Three "I agrees" and an Emeril-style "up a notch." Somebody go over to the "nature of socialism" thread and tell 'em about the love-fest in here.

Well, in that case, I suppose I also agree, in the sense that mostly what I support are socialistic programs rather than the economic system itself. That, and somewhat higher taxes, but on the wealthy, not the common folk. And lower military spending.

Yes, and lower military spending and income taxes are both in the free market's best interest.

Military spending is never priced on the free market and is usually no bid. So the more spending that goes into the military, the more strain that is put on the prices of resources that get filtered into the market.

The graduated income tax is based on the marginal utility of a dollar, meaning that since the higher level of earnings a dollar is at, the more earning potential it has. By taxing higher-dollars more than lower-end dollars the government increases consumer demand, which drives demand up, in turn keeps the consumer on the same level, while providing a large profit margin for the producer.

Yes, and lower military spending and income taxes are both in the free market's best interest.

Military spending is never priced on the free market and is usually no bid. So the more spending that goes into the military, the more strain that is put on the prices of resources that get filtered into the market.

The graduated income tax is based on the marginal utility of a dollar, meaning that since the higher level of earnings a dollar is at, the more earning potential it has. By taxing higher-dollars more than lower-end dollars the government increases consumer demand, which drives demand up, in turn keeps the consumer on the same level, while providing a large profit margin for the producer.
Dirty socialist. :D

Holy crap! Three "I agrees" and an Emeril-style "up a notch." Somebody go over to the "nature of socialism" thread and tell 'em about the love-fest in here.

Maybe we can enlighten them.

In other words, I'm not as much of a Democratic Socialist as I thought I was.

Maybe we can enlighten them.
Please take that back...it smacks of, "WE HOLD THE ULTIMATE TRUTH, IF ONLY YOU WOULD SEE IT!"

I prefer conversation to enlightenment. Those 'eureeka' moments tend to fizzle out...and then you get so hungry...

Dirty socialist. :D

Yes, it is funny that I get termed a liberal, but my views are all based in very conservative lines of thinking.

Yes, it is funny that I get termed a liberal, but my views are all based in very conservative lines of thinking.
Now define that...because conservatism means different things to different people. To me, conservative versus liberal means a fundamental difference in opinion about human nature:

1: Conservative:
- inequality exists, it is good, it creates competition, and the strong survive while the weak perish (thank goodness)

2: Liberal:
- inequality exists, it is exacebated by artificial barriers than must be removed so that the largest amount of people can reach their potential.

Alright, that is pretty slanted, I admit, but I think you'll get where I coming from:) All the debate about what role the government should play stems from these beliefs. Kind of. (very simplistic)

Please take that back...it smacks of, "WE HOLD THE ULTIMATE TRUTH, IF ONLY YOU WOULD SEE IT!"

I prefer conversation to enlightenment. Those 'eureeka' moments tend to fizzle out...and then you get so hungry...

Oh yes, it was merely a joke. Although, it is the truth as I see it.


In other words, I'm not as much of a Democratic Socialist as I thought I was.

Yes, I have realized that about myself as well. You stand very much more in the Classic Liberal form that came about from the Scottish Enlightenment via Thomas Jefferson, if I am right.

Now define that...because conservatism means different things to different people. To me, conservative versus liberal means a fundamental difference in opinion about human nature:

1: Conservative:
- inequality exists, it is good, it creates competition, and the strong survive while the weak perish (thank goodness)

2: Liberal:
- inequality exists, it is exacebated by artificial barriers than must be removed so that the largest amount of people can reach their potential.

Alright, that is pretty slanted, I admit, but I think you'll get where I coming from:) All the debate about what role the government should play stems from these beliefs. Kind of. (very simplistic)

Yes, those labels are very subjective.

I am conservative in the conventional sense that I believe the government has no business in the matters other than facilitating the free market and protecting the rights of the people.

Would you please stop imagining that Democracy keeps the government and the people inseparable? That is fairy tale thinking that would not happen in real life no matter what economic system you would like to impose.

The government will always be separated from the people, and the only things that keep the government responsible to the people are those things that the people do not turn over.

geez man, I agree, but if you're gonna flame something on a public forum post some facts or sources or something. other wise you may as well not bother.

And yet I still don't want to call myself a Libertarian, because I'm frankly not certain exactly where I stand on specific issues. I waver at times so I feel that it's better to call myself a Democrat for now.

Yes, those labels are very subjective.

I am conservative in the conventional sense that I believe the government has no business in the matters other than facilitating the free market and protecting the rights of the people.

Hmmm...those two ideals can be at extreme odds with each other. What happens when facilitation of the free market actively interferes with the rights of the people? What happens when the free market AND the rights of the people are dictated by private, undemocratic organisations?

And yet I still don't want to call myself a Libertarian, because I'm frankly not certain exactly where I stand on specific issues. I waver at times so I feel that it's better to call myself a Democrat for now.
Which issues are you unsure of?

And by the way, don't be afraid to not call yourself anything...I certainly wouldn't want to be labelled: liberal, socialist, communist, anarchistic etc etc, because I adhere to no rigid ideology. I am simply...left. Your position on specific issues defines your spectrum...you should not let your spectrum define your positions.

Which issues are you unsure of?

And by the way, don't be afraid to not call yourself anything...I certainly wouldn't want to be labelled: liberal, socialist, communist, anarchistic etc etc, because I adhere to no rigid ideology. I am simply...left. Your position on specific issues defines your spectrum...you should not let your spectrum define your positions.
Many issues, actually; I waver quite often on the economy. For example, there are times where I want to see the economy advance to the point of being moneyless because the government is able to provide so easily for all of it's citizens, whereas other times I believe that a free market is the best way to go. I waver between the two so often that I simply can't pin it down.
Also, other issues such as gun control and the death penalty. There are times where I want to ban all guns except for the police and military, and others where they should be open to all. I honestly don't know.
But, I think I have to agree with you that I am simply left.

WHY DOES EVERYONE PICK ON US, WHY NOT FIGHT THE COMMON ENEMY THE NAZI OR FASCIST NOT THE SOCIALIST

Many issues, actually; I waver quite often on the economy. For example, there are times where I want to see the economy advance to the point of being moneyless because the government is able to provide so easily for all of it's citizens, whereas other times I believe that a free market is the best way to go. I waver between the two so often that I simply can't pin it down.
Also, other issues such as gun control and the death penalty. There are times where I want to ban all guns except for the police and military, and others where they should be open to all. I honestly don't know.
But, I think I have to agree with you that I am simply left.

Wavering is a good sign...it means you are looking at the issues in different ways. Concrete absolutes, without examination, suggest an issue that hasn't truly been well thought out. Life is a series of compromises...but at some point you need to decide how much you are willing to compromise, and what you are NOT willing to deviate from. That is how your core beliefs are formed. I don't think anyone has all the answers, even their own answers, to all the issues...you invent your answers as you go, and eventually, with different experiences, those answers change, or become solidified into beliefs. (though hopefully those beliefs are still open to critique) I'm glad you're open...too many people say, "This is what I think, this is the truth, and never shall I stray from my painted corner".

WHY DOES EVERYONE PICK ON US, WHY NOT FIGHT THE COMMON ENEMY THE NAZI OR FASCIST NOT THE SOCIALIST

Probably there's no Nazi nor Facist in this board to argue with. It'll end up a one sided agreement. Then there's no fun in that. :P

geez man, I agree, but if you're gonna flame something on a public forum post some facts or sources or something. other wise you may as well not bother.

That was not a flame. I have noticed that the socialists on here want the resources for production being pooled, and that they think a democratic government would be good for that. They do not seem to grasp that a democratic government would no longer be democratic as soon as the people allowed it.

As for sources, it is hard to post sources for an opinion, but how about some evidence:

1: Human rights abuses in the Soviet Union
2: Nazi Germany
3: Human rights abuses in China
4: The fact that every socialist economy was implemented or lead to a totalitarian government.

WHY DOES EVERYONE PICK ON US, WHY NOT FIGHT THE COMMON ENEMY THE NAZI OR FASCIST NOT THE SOCIALIST

Because fascism and totalitarianism is funded by socialism.

<-- agrees with page 2

too bad people tend to only read the first few posts

You Forgot Poland: could I get that list of socialist programs the US has? I ahve a friend who doesn't want to have socialist programs because we are not socialist.

That was not a flame. I have noticed that the socialists on here want the resources for production being pooled, and that they think a democratic government would be good for that. They do not seem to grasp that a democratic government would no longer be democratic as soon as the people allowed it.

Depends on what kind of democracy you're talking about. If you are speaking of a majority representative democracy, then as long as the majority of people wanted the resources of production pooled, that system would remain a democracy. Your argument fails to consider than ANY democracy fails to satisfy everyone, and that any economic system that is implemented goes against some people's wishes. You are equating the free market with democracy...but a democracy is:

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Function: noun

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

It is a political system, not an economic one.

Let's not kid ourselves and say that the US is not 90% capitalistic. The only reason that the government controls those airports is because it facilitates the economy, but it is too awkward and expensive for single corporations to control. The only reason we have socialist policies is to serve as boundaries for capitalism, which if allowed to go on uncontrolled would collapse itself due to economies of scale.

Nah, more like 70% capitalist. Here are some major industries dominated by the government:
-Home mortgage (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac)
-Snail mail delivery (United States Postal Service)
-Unemployment and disability bottom-line insurance (Social Security)
-Facilitation of shipping and transportation (bus systems, train systems, Port Authority, so on and so forth)
-Product inspection and certification (FDA, etc.)
-A very large variety of local and statewide nonprofit industries

Also, the government subsidizes all sorts of nonprofits, including hospitals, mental institutions, homeless shelters and so forth.
And that's only the tip of the iceberg...

WHY DOES EVERYONE PICK ON US, WHY NOT FIGHT THE COMMON ENEMY THE NAZI OR FASCIST NOT THE SOCIALIST

Because both Fascism and Socialism are both oriented towards heavy government control. People find such control to be an insult to their freedom.

Besides, the aim of many of us here is not to pick on any particular ideology or person, but to rationally debate issues of political interest. Typing in size 7 font using all capital letters is likely to diminish your point in the eyes of most of us.

That is if it wasn't already completely asinine.

Which it was.

Vittos, you would be a lot more convincing if your definitions of economic systems came from... oh, I don't know, a book on political economy.

As opposed to dictionary.com. :)

Vittos, you would be a lot more convincing if your definitions of economic systems came from... oh, I don't know, a book on political economy.

As opposed to dictionary.com. :)

Where do you think dictionary.com would get their definition from?

Nah, more like 70% capitalist. Here are some major industries dominated by the government:
-Home mortgage (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac)
-Snail mail delivery (United States Postal Service)
-Unemployment and disability bottom-line insurance (Social Security)
-Facilitation of shipping and transportation (bus systems, train systems, Port Authority, so on and so forth)
-Product inspection and certification (FDA, etc.)
-A very large variety of local and statewide nonprofit industries

Also, the government subsidizes all sorts of nonprofits, including hospitals, mental institutions, homeless shelters and so forth.
And that's only the tip of the iceberg...

Yeah, I know that Freddie Mac. One time he was high-horsin' along wit his string o' hoes trailin' along behind and I was all like, "Freddy Mac, you ain't all that." And he said, "Yeah, well you ain't half so tough as them filet mignons I had for lunch." Then he cut me. Three times.

Ah, Freddie Mac, a man after my own heart.

Vittos, you would be a lot more convincing if your definitions of economic systems came from... oh, I don't know, a book on political economy.

As opposed to dictionary.com. :)

Hey, some of that mud splattered me....or was I the intended splateree?

Depends on what kind of democracy you're talking about. If you are speaking of a majority representative democracy, then as long as the majority of people wanted the resources of production pooled, that system would remain a democracy. Your argument fails to consider than ANY democracy fails to satisfy everyone, and that any economic system that is implemented goes against some people's wishes. You are equating the free market with democracy...but a democracy is:.

How does the citizenry control the government, when the government already controls every aspect of their lives? It is very hard to rebel against the government when they sign your paycheck.

My point is not that if the majority representative wanted pooled resources then it would immediately lose democracy status. If that happened the majority representative would immediately lose its power to the government.

Yeah, I know that Freddie Mac. One time he was high-horsin' along wit his string o' hoes trailin' along behind and I was all like, "Freddy Mac, you ain't all that." And he said, "Yeah, well you ain't half so tough as them filet mignons I had for lunch." Then he cut me. Three times.

Ah, Freddie Mac, a man after my own heart.

That Freddie Mac, such a kidder.

Seriously, the Mae sisters are one thing, but would you really take a loan from a guy named "Freddie Mac"?

That's what's wrong with socialism, my friends.

Vittos, you would be a lot more convincing if your definitions of economic systems came from... oh, I don't know, a book on political economy.

As opposed to dictionary.com. :)

I forgot to mention that the source I got that from was www.importanceofphilosophy.com who sourced dictionary.com

They go on to say:
Capitalism is the only moral political system because it is the only system dedicated to the protection of rights, which is a requirement for human survival and flourishing. This is the only proper role of a government. Capitalism should be defended vigorously on a moral basis, not an economic or utilitarian basis.
and
Socialism is a political system that denies the validity of property rights. Instead, it claims that all property is communally owned. Instead of being a variant of property rights, this is an invalidation of those rights. It destroys the concept of rights by invalidating their base in human life.

Here is another website.


Capitalism:
Economic system characterized by the following: private property ownership exists; individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain; and free market forces determine the prices of goods and services. Such a system is based on the premise of separating the state and business activities. Capitalists believe that markets are efficient and should thus function without interference, and the role of the state is to regulate and protect.

Socialism:
Economic system which is based on cooperation rather than competition and which utilizes centralized planning and distribution.

Man do I feel validated.

How does the citizenry control the government, when the government already controls every aspect of their lives? It is very hard to rebel against the government when they sign your paycheck.

My point is not that if the majority representative wanted pooled resources then it would immediately lose democracy status. If that happened the majority representative would immediately lose its power to the government.

Indeed, extreme socialism is the very antonym of democracy. How can people pretend that the government controlling you more makes you more free?

Another dandy:

Socialism is an evil political system. All political systems, though, rest on an ethical system. Socialism is not an exception. It rests on the moral system of collectivism. It is when collectivism is accepted as valid that socialism is possible. It is through collectivism that the crimes of socialism are ignored.

How does the citizenry control the government, when the government already controls every aspect of their lives? It is very hard to rebel against the government when they sign your paycheck.
To be clear, I am working from this definition of socialism:

Main Entry: so•cial•ism
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Not this:

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

A democratic government that ran a socialist economic system would not 'control every aspect of your life'. It would centralise production and distribution. Now, again, I do not advocate a pure socialist economy, but rather a mixed one. Is it not also 'hard' to rebel against a government that has a monopoly on the use of force (the armed forces, including law enforcement)? Yet, in our countries, the governments DO have a monopoly of force, and I do not see you lambasting that control. Do not equate economics with social freedom...again, you are confusing the 'right' to choose consumer goods with human rights.

My point is not that if the majority representative wanted pooled resources then it would immediately lose democracy status. If that happened the majority representative would immediately lose its power to the government.
This part is a bit confusing...bear with me...so you are saying that the people, who elect a government in a democracy, would turn over their power to the government if a socialist economy was put into place? (is that correct?) Then you are working from the idea that the only economic system that would promote or allow democracy is a free market system? I'll wait to make sure I have you right before responding to this...

Man do I feel validated.

Hehehee...but I wouldn't if I were you...those definitions are highly biased and subjective...'moral' economic system? The whole neo-liberal drive is to keep morality out of business...capitalism good, socialism bad....very simplistic, no matter how loftily worded.

Edit: Plus, I would have trouble with any source that listed "Capitalism" as a POLITICAL SYSTEM. Geez.

Another dandy:

Socialism is an evil political system. All political systems, though, rest on an ethical system. Socialism is not an exception. It rests on the moral system of collectivism. It is when collectivism is accepted as valid that socialism is possible. It is through collectivism that the crimes of socialism are ignored.
Even worse...seriously, this source has lost all credibility in my eyes.

A democratic government that ran a socialist economic system would not 'control every aspect of your life'. It would centralise production and distribution. Now, again, I do not advocate a pure socialist economy, but rather a mixed one. Is it not also 'hard' to rebel against a government that has a monopoly on the use of force (the armed forces, including law enforcement)? Yet, in our countries, the governments DO have a monopoly of force, and I do not see you lambasting that control. Do not equate economics with social freedom...again, you are confusing the 'right' to choose consumer goods with human rights.

The government will sign your paychecks, control the goods you can purchase, decide the education you get, control what industries you could work in. Tell me how you would have power in that system.

This part is a bit confusing...bear with me...so you are saying that the people, who elect a government in a democracy, would turn over their power to the government if a socialist economy was put into place? (is that correct?) Then you are working from the idea that the only economic system that would promote or allow democracy is a free market system? I'll wait to make sure I have you right before responding to this...

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Do you remember when I said property rights are the most important rights? That only through an autonomous society can the rights of a citizen be protected.

Even worse...seriously, this source has lost all credibility in my eyes.

Any political system that strips people of their rights is evil.

I've always held firm the belief that you needed socialism to keep the capitalism honest and capitialism to fund the socialism.

You can't realy have a pure form of either and expect it to stay behaved. Both will collapse inevitably in their purest forms.

I've always held firm the belief that you needed socialism to keep the capitalism honest and capitialism to fund the socialism.

You can't realy have a pure form of either and expect it to stay behaved. Both will collapse inevitably in their purest forms.

This is true. This issue is very much a matter of degrees. Capitalism in its purest form is complete anarchy. If the government funds no police force or military, it carries no weight, and people will be free to do utterly as they please. And some people are pleased by murder and theft.

My point is, funding a basic police force can be considered "socialist" in a sense, the government taxes the populace and creates a service from that tax which serves the entire community. But it's hard to argue that society can exist without basic regulation, thus some amount of socialism is necessary to maintain society.

Conversely, emperical evidence suggests that attempts at utter government control result in disaster too. A great deal of economic and personal freedom is necessary for society to function.

So it's certainly not "for or against", it's very much a matter of where you draw the line. I draw the line at anything beyond publicly funded roads, military, law enforcement and regulation of currency. Very litte government provision. That's what makes me a capitalist, not the fact that my philosophy is somehow "pure" capitalism.

No comments on this?

It's the principle reason why socialism will fail....

It's the principle reason why capitalism is necessary to maintain democracy....

anybody?

Short answer: you are wrong and have no evidence to suggest that you are right. look at Uganda to see how good capitalism is. Or look to the true embodiement of free-market ideals: General Pinochet.

capitalism inherantly gives more influence to the rich, which is undemocratic. It is the reason why capitalism fails and democracy is limited further by increasing capitalist principles.

capitalism inherantly gives more influence to the rich, which is undemocratic. It is the reason why capitalism fails and democracy is limited further by increasing capitalist principles.

No. Democracy is destroyed when the state is allowed to forcefully remove the wealth of its populace and do with it as it pleases. Everybody, rich and poor, should have the right to buy, sell and own property and wealth freely.

The government will sign your paychecks, control the goods you can purchase, decide the education you get, control what industries you could work in. Tell me how you would have power in that system.

Aha...I think I see the root of our disagreement...

Alright, say I championed a centralised economy (which I don't, not a pure one) and the government provided all services, was the only employer, and the only producer of goods (as well as being a major consumer of goods itself).

Education from primary to post-secondary would be free. You assume you would be forced to take a certain path, I do not. The way I see it, you have an education, and then post-secondary education in whatever field you wished to pursue. Nonetheless, the laws of supply and demand would still apply. If the government only had openings for so many poets, despite your fine arts degree, you would probably be flipping burgers (just like in a capitalist, free market system). However, you would earn a living wage (which wouldn't be all that much, considering that your housing would be subsidised, healthcare and education would be free for you and your kids, and price controls of food and energy would keep living expenses low).

Ah, but I can't continue, because I don't support complete centralisation. See my other post http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=387277&page=5 (13) to understand where I DO stand on government involvement.

It boils down to this...you think a centralised economy means a loss of freedoms. I say it doesn't. The truth of course, would depend on whether that government remained democratic and reform was possible. You are assuming the democracy would be taken over by an autocratic government.

Any political system that strips people of their rights is evil.
Capitalism isn't a political system. Please acknowledge that, despite what your source says. As well, stop confusing a free market with freedom (in terms of human rights). The one does not guarantee the other. Nor does a controlled market automatically strip human rights away. We are talking about economic systems, not political ones.

So it's certainly not "for or against", it's very much a matter of where you draw the line. I draw the line at anything beyond publicly funded roads, military, law enforcement and regulation of currency. Very litte government provision. That's what makes me a capitalist, not the fact that my philosophy is somehow "pure" capitalism.

Education? Health care? Social programs? Human rights (should government protect them? or labour rights?)

Yes, I agree...I don't think many people are pure capitalists.

Education? Health care? Social programs? Human rights (should government protect them? or labour rights?)


Well see we draw the line at different points. The only human rights are in my opinion to be defended from fraud, theft and violence. And I think that an unfettered private sector would handle education and healthcare just fine. Private charity can handle those who are utterly destitute.

But that's not the point. The point is yes, though we draw our lines differently, we both agree on a few basics. Neither pure extreme can possibly work.

Capitalism isn't a political system. Please acknowledge that, despite what your source says. As well, stop confusing a free market with freedom (in terms of human rights). The one does not guarantee the other. Nor does a controlled market automatically strip human rights away. We are talking about economic systems, not political ones.

Free market is the economic principle, capitalism is the polical system based on it. I will not acknowledge anything else.

I am not confusing free market for freedoms. I believe that the right of property is the right that all rights are based off of. If it is not preserved none of the others can be preserved.

As for rights

1) you build an invention, who profits from it?
2) you want to go to a religious school, which one do you go to?
3) you want to run your own business, how do you set your wages or prices, how do you set up your business for that matter?
4) you want to pass the money that you have worked for and saved all your life down to your children, how do you do that?
5) you want to build your own house, how do you get the materials?

Education? Health care? Social programs? Human rights (should government protect them? or labour rights?)

Yes, I agree...I don't think many people are pure capitalists.




Labour Laws where I live are so full of shit, they are so bias towards the workers and are driving all the small businesses out of the province and now the government is blaming that on nature causes like drought. They want to raise minimum wage to $10.00 Canadian and I thought "None of these dirt poor farmers who own a little hotel in a country town can afford that". They try to stand up for one group and scare the hell out of another.