Do You Prefer Capitalism or Socialism?

I disagree. Socialism also involves looking after the weak and old in your society. It does not hinge on your own ability to contribute, but recognises that some can contribute more than others.

If your average American could simply gather materials, claim a piece of land and build a home I might agree with you, but those days are long gone. Society is more complicated nowadays.

 

1) Socialism does not involve any kind of largess at all. The 'weak and old' are provided for only after having contributed at a higher level.. and/or are expected to continue contributing in any capacity they can. There is no 'retirement'. You may be too old to harvest potatoes, but you'll spend just as many hours mending socks, as you did in the fields. Remember that collectivism is a practical model, not an altruistic model. It simply has the most efficacy of all models - in terms of social mammal survival - which is probably why it might appear altruistic.

2) Your average American has access to far greater resources than the dirt poor hut builders, so the point is moot. That complexity you speak of is precisely what makes it possible for us to secure our own housing.

 

I disagree with your definition, indeed the things you allude to have nothing to do with socialism. They are more to do with civilisation.
Socialism is just a political system where the people through state owns the means of production.
However care for those in the community has become associated with socialism.

 

Nonsense. Your comparison is so far off beam as to be meaningless.

 

You can disagree .. but all collectivism (ie socialism and communism) is FIRST predicated upon the 'work to eat'. It's the antithesis of the Welfare State, IOW. It starts with the work, always. And the collectivist model is not political - it's economic. Nothing to do with politics. Anyone claiming 'socialism' in Govt is either an idiot or a liar. "Care for the community" is a function of capitalism ... because only capitalism can fund such largesses. Socialism is a no-surplus model, so largess is out of the question.

 

You don't think First World Westerners from Capitalist Democracies, have far more options for securing shelter, than the dirt poor of the Third World?

I'm very curious to know how you arrived at that conclusion.

 

Both capitalism and socialism are broken on their own, and lead to power in the hands of elites. There has to be a mix of the two if a society is going to last, with checks and limitations on everyone, including government leaders and industry leaders.

 

The very best model is capitalist democracy. It provides the surplus to fund the orphans as it were, the opportunity to make as much or as little money as you want, and the freedom to do it however you see fit.

There is nothing more egalitarian.

 

Without some socialism thrown in you will get conditions as they were in 19th century London. Pretty abysmal. Luckily we have learned and have placed my socialist ideas into our system. Once you start putting in too much socialism, however, there is a loss of freedom as well. It’s a scale. Pure capitalism or pure socialism will always fail. The trick is to finding the best mix of capitalist and socialist ideas.

 

There is no socialism in our First World democracies - none at all.

If there was, we really would be seeing something like the 19thC London Workhouse. Socialism isn't free money, socialism is free work.

 

Deliberately over simplified description.

 

We were discussing a certain part of society, not the mean average.
I think our system excludes certain individuals from securing shelter, which is why we have basic social care to fill that gap.

Incidentally is your twisting of my words because you don't feel you can to address my actual points?

 

Everything I say is correct and you have no examples of my mistakes. Change the channel.

 

Socialism is simply fair capitalism with a good safety net like they have in every other modern country except the United States. Ask any socialist In a democracy for crying out loud.... Not someone with a gun to their head in China North Korea or Cuba thanks.

 

I am talking about what you have said in OUR conversation. I cannot help that you consistently respond several days later, at which point you have no idea of the totality of our conversation.

Personally I find you to be a colossal waste of time and I have no interest in pursuing this conversation, but it seems like once per week or so you pop up with yet another mindless quip. Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

Did you want a ten page essay?

Whenever we think about calling something 'socialism' (or any form of collectivism), we must first ask the question: "is it Work-To-Eat?". If the answer is no, it's not collectivism.

 

1) We must work with the average, because they are the greatest number and therefore the best representative. And 'the system' does not exclude anyone - even the poorest can rise up if they're determined.

2) I'm addressing your points.

 

Ask any socialist, socialism is simply fair capitalism with a good safety net. And always democratic. "We are all socialists now!"--President of Finland when Obamacare passed... English speakers just Babble on with propaganda as the basis for all of it.

 

Agreed. And long before the concepts of capitalism and socialism got their names society had adopted the mix of hard work, wealth and looking after the weak and needy.

 

The problem is, in the United States we are the only modern country without a living wage healthcare daycare paid perennial leave cheap college and training great infrastructure and vacations ID card to end illegal immigration and mainly taxing the rich enough so we can invest in America and Americans again. We used to say go west young man but that doesn't work anymore.

 

SOCIETY being people. As in, people looked after people.

 

That's certainly what people I know in the UK see.

 

Yes well done.

 

So you agree that 'society' is the people, not Govt? Good, we're on the same page

 

Yes, but the people employ the government to carry out many of the things being discussed here.