Capitalism vs Socialism ~ MOD ALERT ~

i stopped reading you there..


I ask you, are a product of republican propaganda?
This whole socialist issue and commie BS has only really been implemented to the degree it has in here and other forums , and the likes of fox news and political cartoons...Since Obama wanted to help out 41 million people with out health insurance.

there was a time where i thought communism was not left wing enough for me...i was wrong..communism cannot be implemented...

socialism has naught to do with communism...putting it in the same sentence only has people that know, wonder how far down the propaganda hole you've fallen

 

Your loss!

No, I am a democrat, albeit a moderate democrat.

I am a proponent of universal medical care. But I am not a proponent of socialism or communism.

You are correct, it cannot be implemented with a freely elected government; but you are wrong when you suggest that communism and socialism are very much apart in theory.

Not nearly as far down the rabbit hole as you. Communism and socialism are both forms of Marxism.

Full Definition of MARXISM
: the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society.​

The facts are, communism is nothing but a more oppressive form of socialism and the monkey manure about a classless society just shows how ignorant anyone who believes in it can be.

 

I believe your observations are a little harsh. With some notable exceptions our discussions on this thread have been done without a lot of insulting and ad hominem. Now, if you want to contribute to the discussion, do so, but leave your discussion about persons out of it.

 

you are a product of narrow minded views.

in reality your views about Communism and socialism are two different philosophical epitaphs of your thinking ...lol...

in order for socialism to actually be in existence one needs a wealthy have and a poor have not.

 

Now look who is the kettle calling the pot black.

There can never be a more cruel economic system foisted onto a people than Communism or its little brother Socialism. Both systems eliminate high achievement, personal incentive, ambition and motivation. Man is an animal which thrives on personal achievement and system which would rob human endeavor is the epitome of evil. Both systems are based on Marxism and neither system is functional without oppressive government.

 

Oki doki...you are misinformed and do not want even think about the subject other than talking about both socialism and communism in a manner befitting your stature..

you actually are hilarious...ROFLMAO

ta ta...

 

Actually, reading your posts while drinking coffee is a no no, because it is obvious you are completely oblivious to the evils of Communism and Socialism, both of which are products of a sick mind.

com·mu·nism
ˈkämyəˌnizəm/
noun
noun: communism; noun: Communism; plural noun: Communisms

1. a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.​

 

What I find amazing every time it rears its ugly head is, that there are literate human beings who still like Socialism, Communism or any other form of Marxist theory. Every example of attempts to install any of those systems has failed, and will continue to fail. The reason for that is that Marxism in any of its forms totally over looks the basics of human behavior. Understanding human behavior is imperative to anyone even thinking about economic systems and any associations with government.

 

Definitions are only as good as the metrics they provide. At one time, the Earth was defined as flat. The Cold War is over, so why continue to insist on misdiagnosing the Body politic, through fallacy?

A social Contract is enough socialism to start with.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree to disagree with you.

However, why do you believe Capitalism has not solved simple poverty in our republic? Socialism can solve simple poverty in our republic merely through sufficient social morals for free.

 

Like it or not, the definitions stand as do the metrics they provide. You are simply mislabeling the issue.

What social contract? The one the people in the US have with our ruling documents which call for a freely elected government? Or one which the people of the US would not accept, that being socialism? You may not like the definitions but they are as good as you have come up with.

With very few cases Capitalism has solved poverty in our republic. It has been solved to the point that poverty is only relative to the next higher level of earnings.

Since morals are no better in a socialist republic than a capitalist republic, I don't buy that part one bit. I also don't believe socialism can solve simple poverty to even half the rate capitalism has solved it. At least our poor are only relatively poor, instead of being totally poor, without the capitalist paid social programs to lift then from that abject poverty.

Looking at it in a more practical manner, I believe socialism would reduce our morals because we would be subjecting more people to real poverty. What we have done in the US is raise the standards of living of the poor, and even though they are still below the next tier up, they are still considered below the poverty line. We will likely go further and raise their standards of living more as capitalism makes us more prosperous, then they will still be the relatively poor. Socialism would cause them to lose ground and the next couple of tiers above them as well, since socialism does not increase wealth nearly as much as capitalism. Socialism would make most people fall into poverty in spite of the grandiose theories they espouse.

 

Socialism is inevitable ..It keeps the wealthy safer and more secure in their capitalism.

What gives rise to socialism is the inequality of the classes.
It's actually a device to aid the wealthy and power brokers in their quest for further their wealth and authority over the lower classes.

France has the highest tax rates on the wealthy in the free world ///and the least animosity directed at the wealthy from the lower classes.

you are posting from uninformed propaganda directed at the masses in the USA to derail the Democratic party from being in power.

you've lowered yourself to a form of reactionary pawn with a misdirected patriotism that leads one to a state of comic relief for those that actually care about this world.

 

It isn't me that is engaged in special pleading; my line of reasoning begins with a social contract and builds on that. The Cold War propaganda is relatively meaningless in modern times with modern social programs.

Since when does socialism preclude elections? A social Contract defines the social relationship between civil Persons and their State; there is no capitalism involved in that.

All we need do is be moral enough for free to solve simple poverty throgh free social morals.

 

Actually SOCIALISM : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. Problem is, the theory does not work.

 

Capitalism:- Where half the people try to send the other half broke.
Democracy:- When you want to make a decision about how your country is run, you get half the people to try and kill the other half.
Freedom:- The right to carry a gun so you can shoot anyone who wants to take away your right to carry a gun.
USA:- The land of Freedom, Democracy and Capitalism

 

There you are special pleading about a social contract, as if it were something special, its not as it exists in every government in every economic system in one way or another.

I actually agree with that statement, but it still does not change the basic definitions of the systems. What worked during the cold war likely won't work now, but it still does not change the basic definitions of the systems. You could call it an umph, and socialism would still stink as highly.

Socialism may not preclude an election, but a socialist social contract will stop working as soon as the high achievers figure out they lose dearly with socialism and the government will have to become oppressive to keep socialism in style. It is a system destined to fail when people are free to choose liberty and to keep what is theirs.

You keep harping on morality, yet the most moral economic system ever devised is the one which makes the most people prosperous giving them the funds to help those who are less fortunate. And Daniel, that is not socialism. What capitalism has done is solve abject poverty lifting the standard of living for most of the people. Of course they are still poor relative to those who earn more, but as time and prosperity continue we will improve their lot even more. But they will still be poor relative to the next level up.

What we really need to do is find a way to stop that few from falling through the cracks of the safety nets. Part of that will be a functional universal health care system. That may or may not be ACA, but that is a start. We do not need to destroy the prosperity of the country by changing to a loser economic system which will lower the wealth of almost all our citizens, not just the poor.

 

I have met many people in my almost 78 years. Some were successful at everything they tried. Some failed at everything they tried, and of course there were many in between who did ok but did not excel. There is one trait that has been present in all of the successful people, right from the start, and that was optimism. I have never bet an optimist who failed, because they won't let themselves fail and they keep plugging until they succeed. Optimism is a trait that a successful person must have or that person doesn't have a chance.

I have spent many a day of the last 25 years in our local schools, 1st as a counselor for the State Dept of Rehabilitation while doing my internship for Psychology graduate degree, but then later by invite to schools of my grandchildren (of which I have 14 age 13 to 32 and 6 great grandchildren. Mostly in elementary school because the later age kids don't want Grandpa lurking in the halls. One could talk to the kids and sense their optimism, or not, and predict with fair accuracy which ones would excel in school and those who would either get by or fail.

I sense a lot of pessimism among some of my fellow posters. It is my opinion that people are not pessimistic because they failed, but rather they failed because they were pessimistic.

At any rate, I think this thread has run its course, because in the last 50 to 100 posts things have gone down hill fast. I suspect I am part of the blame, but a little introspection will not hurt anyone. Good luck and don't forget to try.

 

A social Contract is special, it defines who we are as civil Persons in our republic and our relationship with our State. It is a building block or corner stone.

I agree to disagree with your assessment since socialism has the same problem as capitalism in many economies, since many socialist economies allow capital programs (and, as you have claimed, just a few programs does not an economy make.) And, in the US, socialism has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses to the "high achievers" on corporate welfare.

Socialism can actually solve simple poverty by actually requiring a work ethic and an employment ethic; not only half of the equation by calling it capitalism.

 

WELL SAID! That's the idea!

 

About 1% of Americans own about 40% of American wealth. Marx was right about under-regulated economic stratification after all.

 

Yeah Daniel, it is so special that every citizenry in every country has one, whether they like it or not.

Not socialism Daniel, some cronyism in our capitalism.

The problem with that solution is, socialism won't create enough wealth to pay for it. Calling something a specific label does not change what it is. Socialism does not create wealth, all it does is spend it.

- - - Updated - - -

It is a shame it won't work because socialism doesn't make enough prosperity to pay for its empty promises.

 

Marx may have been right about under-regulated economic stratification, but he knew nothing about making an economy create prosperity for the entire population.

BTW, being absorbed by Zimmerman is a losing sign no matter who won. We would have all been better off had we simply thought more about the Trayvons of the world.

 

The Militia of the United States can never have a problem with their social Contract and supreme law of the land; why do you.

Socialism can manufacture social programs with positive multiplier effects as easily as standing around and talking about it, and taking a voice vote afterward.

What solution does Capitalism have to solve simple poverty in our republic?

You are welcome to come up with capital based solutions to the social dilemma of a poverty of capital in our republic, in my, why not solve poverty in our republic thread.

 

You misunderstand my point Daniel. I don't have a problem with what you call our "social Contract" and the law of the land. The only problem I have is the suggestion that it has any association with Socialism. Simply because the word social has been put in front the word contract does not make it socialism. There are effectively social contracts in every country with a government, even in the countries where the citizenry doesn't like the contract. It is nothing more that the citizenry having an agreement to live by the rules or laws of the country.

An agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.​

We accept or reject that "social contract" by remaining subject to the rules and laws or we reject it by leaving. There is nothing in "social contract" which suggests anything about socialism. It can represent the interaction between citizens and a freely elected government or it can represent the interaction between citizens in a monarchy or a dictatorship; and again the acceptance or rejection is determined by our presence or lack thereof.

Yet the very structure of socialism holds back high achievers and supports low achievers when the "as needed" and " of ability" gets involved; thus reducing the possibility of achieving prosperity. It also requires government to become oppressive as the high achievers want to leave to receive their fair share based on contribution.

Prosperity and social programs!

Capitalism has already solved the social dilemma of basic poverty with social programs. What we now need is to figure out a way to catch those who slip through the cracks in our safety nets.

The next thing that needs to be done is to recognize that even after elevating the least wealthy among us to having the basic needs of life and in most cases some luxuries of life, they are still the least wealthy and they still consider themselves "poor" even though when compared to other "poor" of the world they are relatively well off. It is also important to recognize that compressing the wage quintiles into a much smaller group will still not change the status of the least wealthy. We could even merge the least wealthy into the fourth quintile, but it wouldn't be long before those who were there before the merge would be moving up leaving the least wealthy still alone as the least wealthy.

All every experiment ever tried with true socialism (as defined) is to bring the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quintiles down to the level of the 5th quintile making most of the people poor instead of the stated intentions (in socialist theory) of elevating everyone. As in communism, the classless society which emerges, are all now poor leaving only the leaders with wealth. This may be a little simplistic, but our experience with socialist nations prove the point.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=325467&p=1063156455#post1063156455

 

Under the circumstances we have run out of relevant input.