socialism/capitalism

[Boltlady]

Instead of everybody trying so hard to have one or the other, my dream would be to have both simultaneously. That would be an example of the intelligence that humans are supposed to possess.

First I believe that rudimentary needs should be met for everyone with no requirements to receive them outside of proof of that receipt. In short, basic food, basic health care and basic shelter. People should not starve to death, freeze to death, or die from easily repaired health problems. Beyond that, if people would like to have better 'stuff' they would be encouraged to earn it.

It would not be public responsibility to provide junk food and crunchy snacks, health care for prolonged illnesses or housing that included more than basic bathroom and kitchen facilities. There again, people could exist even if they had no ambition at all, but they would at least have a base to work from if they wanted to improve their lot in life. There would be no reason why those with ambition and abilities couldn't rise to all kinds of levels beyond that base.

Capitalism could certainly rule once we would know that nobody would have to starve to death for it to happen.

 

[georgephillip]

This might be useful to reveal what the two economic systems have in common and how they differ:

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...ferences-between-capitalism-and-socialism.asp

"The fundamental difference between capitalism and socialism is the scope of government intervention in the economy.

"The capitalist economic model allows free market conditions to drive innovation and wealth creation; this liberalization of market forces allows for the freedom of choice, resulting in either success or failure.

"The socialist-based economy incorporates elements of centralized economic planning, utilized to ensure conformity and to encourage equality of opportunity and economic outcome.

"Ownership

"In a capitalist economy, property, and businesses are owned and controlled by individuals.

"In a socialist economy, the state owns and controls the major means of production. In some socialist economic models, worker cooperatives have primacy over production. Other socialist economic models allow individual ownership of enterprise and property, albeit with high taxes and stringent government controls."

Read more: What are the differences between capitalism and socialism? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-are-differences-between-capitalism-and-socialism.asp#ixzz4riHoDZWI
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Today's socialism favors the worker self directed enterprise business model which seek the bring democracy to the workplace, where most adults spend a majority of their waking hours.

Capitalism favors a dictatorial approach to labor relations while while socialism prefers consensus building.

 

[Boltlady]

This might be useful to reveal what the two economic systems have in common and how they differ:

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...ferences-between-capitalism-and-socialism.asp

"The fundamental difference between capitalism and socialism is the scope of government intervention in the economy.

"The capitalist economic model allows free market conditions to drive innovation and wealth creation; this liberalization of market forces allows for the freedom of choice, resulting in either success or failure.

"The socialist-based economy incorporates elements of centralized economic planning, utilized to ensure conformity and to encourage equality of opportunity and economic outcome.

"Ownership

"In a capitalist economy, property, and businesses are owned and controlled by individuals.

"In a socialist economy, the state owns and controls the major means of production. In some socialist economic models, worker cooperatives have primacy over production. Other socialist economic models allow individual ownership of enterprise and property, albeit with high taxes and stringent government controls."

Read more: What are the differences between capitalism and socialism? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-are-differences-between-capitalism-and-socialism.asp#ixzz4riHoDZWI
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Today's socialism favors the worker self directed enterprise business model which seek the bring democracy to the workplace, where most adults spend a majority of their waking hours.

Capitalism favors a dictatorial approach to labor relations while while socialism prefers consensus building.

One of the biggest problems we have today is the all or nothing mindset that seems to be taking over. Things could be one way up to a point and beyond that it could be another. People could make their own choices.

 

[Queen Titania]

Instead of everybody trying so hard to have one or the other, my dream would be to have both simultaneously. That would be an example of the intelligence that humans are supposed to possess.

First I believe that rudimentary needs should be met for everyone with no requirements to receive them outside of proof of that receipt. In short, basic food, basic health care and basic shelter. People should not starve to death, freeze to death, or die from easily repaired health problems. Beyond that, if people would like to have better 'stuff' they would be encouraged to earn it.

It would not be public responsibility to provide junk food and crunchy snacks, health care for prolonged illnesses or housing that included more than basic bathroom and kitchen facilities. There again, people could exist even if they had no ambition at all, but they would at least have a base to work from if they wanted to improve their lot in life. There would be no reason why those with ambition and abilities couldn't rise to all kinds of levels beyond that base.

Capitalism could certainly rule once we would know that nobody would have to starve to death for it to happen.

We had that here for the first 25ish years of my life ----------- the cushion was taken for granted BUT without a constant watchful eye corruption sets in - and the harm can never be undone.

 

[Boltlady]

We had that here for the first 25ish years of my life ----------- the cushion was taken for granted BUT without a constant watchful eye corruption sets in - and the harm can never be undone.

Oh so many years ago when I was learning about the different forms of gov't, it became clear that a number of them would be just fine except for the human factor that tends to screw everything up. In fact, we all pretty well agreed that communism would have been really great if people weren't implementing it.

Democracy seemed like the best type because of all of the checks and balances that had gotten factored in (at least in our form of it). Unfortunately, through time people have figured out how to bypass the checks and balances and we're getting stuck with an intolerable form of gov't that will ultimately be nothing more than slavery. In many ways it already is but a lot of people haven't recognized that yet.

People here are still being told they're free and large numbers of them believe it.

 

[Queen Titania]

Oh so many years ago when I was learning about the different forms of gov't, it became clear that a number of them would be just fine except for the human factor that tends to screw everything up. In fact, we all pretty well agreed that communism would have been really great if people weren't implementing it.

Democracy seemed like the best type because of all of the checks and balances that had gotten factored in (at least in our form of it). Unfortunately, through time people have figured out how to bypass the checks and balances and we're getting stuck with an intolerable form of gov't that will ultimately be nothing more than slavery. In many ways it already is but a lot of people haven't recognized that yet.

People here are still being told they're free and large numbers of them believe it.

I loathe communism, even in theory, outside small communities who live so by choice and I am gradually going off democracy too - quite off it!

 

[Capitalist]

Instead of everybody trying so hard to have one or the other, my dream would be to have both simultaneously. That would be an example of the intelligence that humans are supposed to possess.

First I believe that rudimentary needs should be met for everyone with no requirements to receive them outside of proof of that receipt. In short, basic food, basic health care and basic shelter. People should not starve to death, freeze to death, or die from easily repaired health problems. Beyond that, if people would like to have better 'stuff' they would be encouraged to earn it.

It would not be public responsibility to provide junk food and crunchy snacks, health care for prolonged illnesses or housing that included more than basic bathroom and kitchen facilities. There again, people could exist even if they had no ambition at all, but they would at least have a base to work from if they wanted to improve their lot in life. There would be no reason why those with ambition and abilities couldn't rise to all kinds of levels beyond that base.

Capitalism could certainly rule once we would know that nobody would have to starve to death for it to happen.

Well, it sounds good on paper but here is the $64,000 question:

Where do you draw the line?

Because if you want to draw the line pretty darn low i.e. JUST enough food to survive and JUST enough shelter to keep the rain off your face and JUST enough clothes to walk around in public you'll get a ton of people saying that that's not dignified and that the bare minimum should be to provide enough food, clothing, shelter, and medical care to be dignified. I get this from my own Catholic church!

And THEN where do you draw the line? What is "dignified?" And why shouldn't able bodied people be made uncomfortable in their poverty? What ever happened to Ben Franklin's saying?

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

Wise words indeed!

Now I also believe that once upon a time we had a need for unions. And that unions were necessary to break the monopoly business had on poor working conditions and low pay. But those days are long LONG behind us. And unions and socialism in general today are nothing but leeches and vampires sucking the life blood out of our nation and culture.

AND we have history! We know where we came from! So now today we could pitch unions and socialism to the ash heap confident that we will NOT repeat the sins of the past because we know HISTORY (any of this sinking through to you Confederate statue destroyers?).

What we really need, to replace socialism, to replace "bare minimum" needs enforced by the power of the state, is a rebirth of religion--a rebirth of charity. Capitalism survives and even thrives hand in hand with charity. It is not possible through law. You cannot legislate your way into heaven. You must give freely. That requires charity. But to have enough to GIVE you must have capitalism. THAT is how we survive and thrive!

 

[georgephillip]

One of the biggest problems we have today is the all or nothing mindset that seems to be taking over. Things could be one way up to a point and beyond that it could be another. People could make their own choices.

Another problem we face today is a lack of information.

Most Americans never study Economics, and if they do, they learn about only one economic system, namely capitalism.

It's like taking a course in Religion and learning solely about a single faith.

http://www.democracyatwork.info/capitalism_vs_socialism_a_changed_debate

"Capitalism vs. Socialism: A Changed Debate..."

"Once again, private capitalism's contradictions, flaws and weaknesses threaten its own existence.

"Two major global collapses -- first in the 1930s and more recently, since 2008 -- plus periodic downturns every few years have underscored the instability that haunts the system.

"At the same time, deepening inequality has turned ever-larger populations into capitalism's critics.

"Talk of reform and revolution has crowded onto political agendas.

"The capitalism versus socialism debate has returned everywhere.

"However, it is a changed debate transformed by lessons drawn from the Soviet Union and other similar experiences and experiments.

"The debate now displays three key alternative systems, not two: private capitalism, state capitalism and socialism.

"And that changes everything."

 

[Capitalist]

Another problem we face today is a lack of information.

What a weird thing to say in the Age of Information.

Information has never been more easily accessed in the history of the earth than it is today. The problem is not a lack of information. It is a lack of wisdom in using the ocean of information we are swimming in.

 

[georgephillip]

Now I also believe that once upon a time we had a need for unions. And that unions were necessary to break the monopoly business had on poor working conditions and low pay. But those days are long LONG behind us. And unions and socialism in general today are nothing but leeches and vampires sucking the life blood out of our nation and culture.

The leeches and vampire squids destroying the US economy work on Wall Street getting rich from inflating real estate assets like Trump Towers.

Instead of discriminating between socialism and capitalism based on public v private control over the means of production, try thinking about the distinction in terms of the relationship between employer and employee.

http://www.democracyatwork.info/capitalism_vs_socialism_a_changed_debate

"Capitalism, we have learned, displays both private and state forms, and socialism differs from both of them.

"Capitalism, as we discuss further below, is a production system structured by its relationship of employer to employee as different persons or groups, regardless of whether employers are public or private.

"In contrast, socialism's very different structure has employer and employee being the same person."

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Another problem we face today is a lack of information.

Most Americans never study Economics, and if they do, they learn about only one economic system, namely capitalism.

It's like taking a course in Religion and learning solely about a single faith.

http://www.democracyatwork.info/capitalism_vs_socialism_a_changed_debate

"Capitalism vs. Socialism: A Changed Debate..."

"Once again, private capitalism's contradictions, flaws and weaknesses threaten its own existence.

"Two major global collapses -- first in the 1930s and more recently, since 2008 -- plus periodic downturns every few years have underscored the instability that haunts the system.

"At the same time, deepening inequality has turned ever-larger populations into capitalism's critics.

"Talk of reform and revolution has crowded onto political agendas.

"The capitalism versus socialism debate has returned everywhere.

"However, it is a changed debate transformed by lessons drawn from the Soviet Union and other similar experiences and experiments.

"The debate now displays three key alternative systems, not two: private capitalism, state capitalism and socialism.

"And that changes everything."

If that is so, why is it that the world is crawling with socialists? It's not capitalism's "flaws and weaknesses" which threaten it, but rather (contrary to this guy's very premise) the overwhelming negative connotations that are heaped upon it by our educators and political leaders. Including this clown who suggests that FDR's Great Depression and Barack Obama's Great Recession were the result of some "inner flaw" possessed by free market capitalism, when in fact, it was the (big government) socialist policies imposed by those radical left wing Presidents that produced those episodes

 

[Queen Titania]

Well, it sounds good on paper but here is the $64,000 question:

Where do you draw the line?

Because if you want to draw the line pretty darn low i.e. JUST enough food to survive and JUST enough shelter to keep the rain off your face and JUST enough clothes to walk around in public you'll get a ton of people saying that that's not dignified and that the bare minimum should be to provide enough food, clothing, shelter, and medical care to be dignified. I get this from my own Catholic church!

And THEN where do you draw the line? What is "dignified?" And why shouldn't able bodied people be made uncomfortable in their poverty? What ever happened to Ben Franklin's saying?



Wise words indeed!

Now I also believe that once upon a time we had a need for unions. And that unions were necessary to break the monopoly business had on poor working conditions and low pay. But those days are long LONG behind us. And unions and socialism in general today are nothing but leeches and vampires sucking the life blood out of our nation and culture.

AND we have history! We know where we came from! So now today we could pitch unions and socialism to the ash heap confident that we will NOT repeat the sins of the past because we know HISTORY (any of this sinking through to you Confederate statue destroyers?).

What we really need, to replace socialism, to replace "bare minimum" needs enforced by the power of the state, is a rebirth of religion--a rebirth of charity. Capitalism survives and even thrives hand in hand with charity. It is not possible through law. You cannot legislate your way into heaven. You must give freely. That requires charity. But to have enough to GIVE you must have capitalism. THAT is how we survive and thrive!

The question of the line came when jobs disappeared.

We are in a strange place now where purposefully jobs have gone and or even poorer people are brought in from abroad to keep the bolshy workers down.

Govs give corporate their cheap labour which is not capitalism is it?

 

[Queen Titania]

The leeches and vampire squids destroying the US economy work on Wall Street getting rich from inflating real estate assets like Trump Towers.

Instead of discriminating between socialism and capitalism based on public v private control over the means of production, try thinking about the distinction in terms of the relationship between employer and employee.

http://www.democracyatwork.info/capitalism_vs_socialism_a_changed_debate

"Capitalism, we have learned, displays both private and state forms, and socialism differs from both of them.

"Capitalism, as we discuss further below, is a production system structured by its relationship of employer to employee as different persons or groups, regardless of whether employers are public or private.

"In contrast, socialism's very different structure has employer and employee being the same person."

Corporatism is disguising itself as socialism - beware

 

[Capitalist]

.

Govs give corporate their cheap labour which is not capitalism is it?

I'd say no. If the gov is involved it's not a free market economy--not capitalism. What you've described is crony capitalism--just another flavor of socialism.

 

[Capitalist]

I loathe communism, even in theory, outside small communities who live so by choice and I am gradually going off democracy too - quite off it!

My wife and I stayed in a kibbutz while visiting Israel. They had about 200 people living in a commune. Everything was commonly owned including abilities. They had a doctor so medical care was free of charge. Our spokes person and tour guide just finished a 10 year legal battle with the kibbutz. She wanted to be a member yet keep all of her personal possessions. Turns out she won her legal battle. It was very interesting because her whole tour spiel was about how great it was living in the kibbutz with no personal property. Everyone in our group laughed.

It was a grand example of hypocrisy and the failure of commune living.

 

[Capitalist]

"Capitalism, we have learned, displays both private and state forms, and socialism differs from both of them.

Nope. State capitalism is socialism. It is state control (ownership-- remember that discussion?) of the means of production. Are you getting it now? Are you understanding?

"In contrast, socialism's very different structure has employer and employee being the same person."

Yes! Because both work for the state! No thank you!

 

[Capitalist]

Corporatism is disguising itself as socialism - beware

What would you call it?

Is it still capitalism when business owns the government? Or is that an unholy union producing nothing but corruption?

What does free-market mean if not "free from the government?"

 

[Queen Titania]

My wife and I stayed in a kibbutz while visiting Israel. They had about 200 people living in a commune. Everything was commonly owned including abilities. They had a doctor so medical care was free of charge. Our spokes person and tour guide just finished a 10 year legal battle with the kibbutz. She wanted to be a member yet keep all of her personal possessions. Turns out she won her legal battle. It was very interesting because her whole tour spiel was about how great it was living in the kibbutz with no personal property. Everyone in our group laughed.

It was a grand example of hypocrisy and the failure of commune living.

Oh I know a few families who went on the kibbutz trail early on ------ awful stories - they were building an army. Wicked.

 

[Queen Titania]

What would you call it?

Is it still capitalism when business owns the government? Or is that an unholy union producing nothing but corruption?

What does free-market mean if not "free from the government?"

A free market is when everyone may trade with everyone else - Empires halted that little dream but didn't absolutely kill it.

Now ------- it is a protection racket, that is all. One huge great protection racket with Govs on the pay roll.

 

[Capitalist]

Oh I know a few families who went on the kibbutz trail early on ------ awful stories - they were building an army. Wicked.

Oh I don't doubt it! Our tour guide talked about the good ol' days when they would raise the hammer and sickle in the courtyard and raise their socialist fists in salute. I thought, "WTF? The (mostly) capitalist West just saved your ass. Now you reap the rewards of capitalism in your own country. Do you have the memory of a goldfish?"

The whole thing was very enlightening.