Capitalism, Socialism, or in between?

in between. Kind of like this country (US). maybe a little more capitalist.

Capitalism has done some geat things, but it's over-reached itself now. Time for sensible socialism - not Marxism because it's now an outdated 19th Century idea - but 21st Century democratic socialism.

Define em, I'm not picking based on labels alone.

You'd like to hear my definitions? Please contradict me if you disagree.

Capitalism - a system in which businesses are privately owned and operated for personal profit and gain. It is the system in which 'the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.' Ideally capitalism forms a free market in which the government does not intrude upon the workings of business at all, laissez-faire.

Socialism - a system in which businesses are government or societally owned and operated, for the community as a whole's profit. Ideally socialism forms welfare states wherein the wealth is redistributed from the rich and to the poor in an attempt at rectifying social inequality.

Me? I vote capitalism. I dislike the idea that the government can take my money away to give to someone else. I've heard it said:

Okay, a little exaggerated, but you see the point; welfare has not proven to work the way it was supposed to.

I'm pro-capitalism. Just as in biology, it's only natural that the strong should thrive for their endowments.

I don't disagree with welfare as a small program within the government for folks like the disabled and elderly who require it, but I fear a welfare state only promotes a society of complacency.

Right, based on those definitions I'd be inclined to agree with you, or perhaps I'd be voting for the in between option. In order for a market to be free some government intervention is neccesary of course in order to break up monopolies and cartels, but I suppose you'ld allow that.

I have a herd time seing how private ownership could work in operating natural monopolies such as road networks and sewer systems though, having two or more paralell sewers in order to facilitate competitions just seems like a waste. I'm all for having the actual work contracted out to private enterprise, but I wouldn't want any private interest the roads or sewers.

I'd also favour socialised law enforcement and tax funded fire fighters.

I seem to fit in the in betwen catecory.

Interesting. I'm for an in-between.

Laissez-faire and the invisible hand is too unrealistic.
Extreme socialism is unrealistic also.



Animals kill each other. Should we do that as well? Basing things on Biological patterns that we observe in nature does not spell out what should be.



That's why I'm in between. I think we ought to give welfare to those who require it, but not to those who doesn't.

It was a figurative reference. A business should certainly "die" if it is not meeting the desires of consumers by keeping up with market competition.

Before anyone cries monopoly, I believe monopolies are obviously not representative of healthy business competition and should be broken up. That may be an idea more towards the socialist part of the spectrum, but I feel it is in fact out of capitalistic principle to restore the market.

Despite my thoughts on a small welfare program and breaking up monopolies, I still don't think I'm in-between because I'm at least signficiantly slanted towards capitalism. You can't be entirely moderate, or you'd be indecisive about everything.

I agree. I'm changing my vote to 'pretty much capitalism, but not so much that it's an unregulated business free-for-all.'

Er, wait, that's not a category... oh well.

All of you, wake up! Man cannot live as individuals alone.
These times, socialism, capitalism, and other isms, don't work.

For example: More cars are now made in the Canadian province of Ontario than are made in Michigan.
Why?

Because all Canadians are medically covered. So. the manufacturers don't have to offer medical care insurance as a benefit.

Try sorting that as an issue of Capitalism, Socialism and Libertarianism.

No argument.

No argument? Sorry to disappoint you.

You just gave an example of advanced globalised capitalism (although I admit "globalised capitalism" is a bit redundant as a term now - "capitalism" will do). Capitalist interests have no affiliation with any particular country, we fool ourselves into thinking a company is "American", "Canadian", "Australian" but in truth they have nothing to do with a country. Sure they may have registered offices there but they'll move them like a flash if it suits.

Socialised medicine Yes, I love it.

Is socialism the same as communism? I was told it is the same.

In response to the question of this thread: lets be realistic. China tried to be as communist as possible back in the 50s and what happened? there was a huge famine because the gov's policies in their instituting communism programs was encouraging the peasants to be lazy but still gave them food to eat - free food and who wouldn't say no to that? Communist doesn't work in todays socieity! I am a pro-capitialist and even China today, despite its CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY title and brand is capitalist in practice.

What I was always told is that communism is more geared towards government, while socialism has more to do with economics. Whether this actually makes much sense, I'm not to judge, but take it as you will.

Merriam-Webster says that communism promotes elimination of private property and is a totalitarian government system where all goods are collectively owned, available as needed. It also says that is it the final stage in the Marxist theory, where the state has withered away and all goods are equally distributed.

Merriam-Webster has a lot to say about socialism as well. It's considered to be any economic/political theory that promotes collective/governmental ownership and control. It's a stage of society in Marxist theory, between capitalism and communism, with unequal distribution of goods, doled out according to work done.

Personally, I think anything in the extremes is usually a warning sign that it will fail. Total capitalism, complete socialism, all work, no play... Living in extremes seems to give a huge restriction on how easily adaptable things are to new situations.

People who earn money deserve it- whether that's through excruciating work, or idiot luck, it matters little. People who have limited ways to earn money, are disabled in some way, should still be given the chance to live a decent lifestyle- food on the table, a roof above their heads, medical attention. But not so comfortable that they lose their will to contribute to society; ambition to better oneself is clearly an important driving force.

I think I tend to side with a fair amount of people in saying that capitalism, regulated of course, is (as of now) the best way to go. Watered down here and there, of course, but with the basic principles, ideologies and whatnot.

That's all I can manage to think of at the moment. I'm not one for politics, but figured since it's nearing 2 in the morning, why not?

Communism is not the same as Socialism. I believe there was an American who tried to create a socialist community in the US.

Communism wants violent revolution which would be followed by vanguard ruling, and then leading to anarchy. Socialism on the other hand, does not hold that view. I think they're for democracy and peaceful transition and a centrally controlled government.

I'm not sure though.

Hey, isn't libertarianism an extreme of capitalism?

I thought capitalism was one part or section of libertarianism? But I'm taking this as interpretation of liberal - liberal to do what you want.

Between

DAMN IT! okay. Socialism on this chart reads less to more, not the other way around. I'm an idiot sometimes.

Okay, I threw this together rather quickly, so it's obviously not perfect; don't nail me for it, I know it's not that great.

Libertarians are basically anarchists who have the good sense to realize that 3 people can't agree on anything, let alone an entire community, and believe that government is a necessity. Even so, they are for as little government as possible. They support all manner of civil rights. They are opposed to all socialism on the grounds that they feel that people should control their own financs, and that government has no right to redistribute wealth.

Republicans, and most capitalists, are opposed to socialism, but they're also a little more strict in terms of what should be allowed and what should not be. Conservative republicans are usually in favor of a little government control in terms of civil rights, i.e. they're opposed to drug use, public nudity, and homosexuality. Moreover, they hold business in higher regard than they do the environment, and so they have no problem cutting down a forest to further a business' financial gain.

Liberals/democrats/socialists are a little different. Although they're a bit more inclined to support civil rights like the aforementioned drug use and homosexuality, they are also supportive of social programs that take from the wealthy and help the impoverished, such as medicare. Redistribution of wealth isn't all; liberals usually also will rally to the cause of environmental protection over business. This is the save-the-whales schtick you see.

Communism is socialism to the nth power. Not only is wealth redistributed, like with the socialist programs above, but all businesses, trades, and commerce is owned by the community rather than privately, and all profits are redistributed evenly to all members of the community. Communism has nothing to do with civil rights; the amount of freedom the individual has in a commune is determined by the leader. We're inclined to think that communism is not about freedom, but that's because all the modern-day communist leaders (stalin, castro) have been tyrants.

NOTE that I did not include anarchy on the graph, because it has no socialism or government of any sort.

Okay, okay, I made generalizations and overgeneralizations. I understand, you may not agree, but that's how I break these styles of government down. The republicans and democrats of America, incidentally, are extremely centrist, and only differ slightly both in terms of civil rights and social equality. Now, tell me where you think I'm wrong.

While you are pondering the qualities of each and which to choose......look at them from a different angle.

Which system gives you, as an individual the freedom to become anything you want to be?

Which system provides the best environment for innovation?

Is there any contest?

If that is what liberals are supposed to be, somebody come to Oz and rename the current political party here, please. They are the coalition - two parties put together. Its the Liberals (famous Johnny Howard) and the Nationals, but in practical effect, its the liberals who make the Australian political policy.

The liberals here:

- have just passed legislation banning rights to homosexual marriages
- implemented policy which makes rich private schools richer and poor public schools poorer (I'm serious - its no exgeration.)
- implemented tax reform which gives upper class 24% tax cuts per week but middle to lower income earners only enjoy 6% tax cuts per week.
- and refuse to sign the Kyoto treaty, along with US Pres Bush.