Capitalism versus Socialism

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Nazis are the extreme Right (Fascism). Communists are the extreme Left. Socialists are Left of Center. Democrats are Less Left of Center. Authoritaruianism is Right of Center. Republicans are Less Right of Center. Let's get our facts straight before we associate Socialists with Fascists.

Let's remember that the Nazis hated the Communists, and the Communists hated the Nazis. This is basic political science.

Barbarossaquote>

Nazi is short for Nationalsozialismus, or National Socialism. It has socialism right in the name. Fascism is much harder to define, but at least it is in opposition to socialism. Let's see what our friend George Orwell says (from Wikipedia)...

Originally posted by: George Orwell

...the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'.quote>

Fascism sees the classes as desirable, and rules through corporations (labour unions and businesses), while Nazism wants to get rid of the classes and establish the F

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[belfastuniguy 18]

The Nazi party started as a socialist party, however it quickly became nothing like a socialist party. So the comparsion of socialism to Nazism is not only highly inaccurate but also offensive.

Again some people are confusing communist and socialism, Socialist governments DO NOT control industry or take private property, that is COMMUNISM.

As Barbarossa stated both socialist and capitalist ideals can get along very well together in a country and Europe is the best example and the UK the most successful.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy The Nazi party started as a socialist party, however it quickly became nothing like a socialist party. So the comparsion of socialism to Nazism is not only highly inaccurate but also offensive.

Again some people are confusing communist and socialism, Socialist governments DO NOT control industry or take private property, that is COMMUNISM.

As Barbarossa stated both socialist and capitalist ideals can get along very well together in a country and Europe is the best example and the UK the most successful.quote>

I don't see how this offensive. Although socialism is almost as hard to define as fascism, I cannot agree with you that Europe ever was socialist (not on the western side of the curtain at least). And the UK is certainly not a successful example of socialism; I would however agree with you if you called it social democracy.

Karl Marx, the one with the communist ideas, defined socialism as the stage before communism, and one of the hallmarks was the state control (which socialist parties agrees with). It is common to think of Soviet as communist; however the type of government was socialism, as you can derive from the name: Union of Socialist Soviet [Council] Republics. Communism was the ultimate goal, which would include the dissolving the state.

Labour parties are many places called Social Democrats throughout Europe, as in Sweden, Denmark and Germany. Ask a German: West Germany was a Social Democracy, and East Germany was a Socialist state. Socialist were actually persecuted in the time some of us like to think of as "most socialist" (Early Cold War), and subject to intrusive and illegal surveillance in many countries.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

 I believe in absolutely no dependence on others (this is only a personal belief).

quote>

Absolutely no dependence?  That is practically impossible in today's world.  Do you grow your own food?  Manufacture your own car?  Refine your own oil?  Build your own computer?  Build your own TV?  Take out your own appendix?

Most people these days are specialists in something and depend on others for various goods and services.  If only for the sake of time.  Who has time to do all of that for themselves?  The Amish come as close as anyone I've seen and even they are dependent on the income they get from selling their produce, quilts, and furniture.

Originally posted by: Hahayoudied

However, workers can slack off and still get the same pay as a super hard working worker. quote>

This is one of my main problems with socialism.   Why work harder, better, or longer if most of the rewards of it are going to be taken away and given to someone else?  As one of my British friends says, she only gets paid a few more quid a week working 50+ hours than her neighbor on the dole.   She can't be the only one who resents it.  It leads to reduced productivity.

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4

As for healthcare, it's a basic human right. People should be cared for even if they can't afford it, period. There's no way to justify leaving someone on Skid Row just because they can't pay some dumb bill.quote>

To a point, I agree with you.  and then I have to wonder why people think that the world owes them a living.  I was taught that it does not.

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

 why don't we just set everything up where the program exists, and if you want to take advantage of it, you start chipping in for it.  If you don't want anything to do with the program, you don't pay taxes for it.quote>

okay . . . so if my neighbor doesn't want to pay the taxes to support the fire department, we just say, too bad and let his house burn down?

Remind me not to vote for you 

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Not too sure what education you have had in socialism, but in Europe the socialist governments don't go round raking private property..........That would be a Communist, would seem some people aren't able to distinguish between them for some reason.....quote>

Well, back in my day, they didn't teach much about socialism.    I think they are explaining it better these days, in some places anyway.  The curriculum varies from state to state and county to county.

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

 I believe in absolutely no dependence on others (this is only a personal belief).

quote>

Absolutely no dependence?  That is practically impossible in today's world.  Do you grow your own food?  Manufacture your own car?  Refine your own oil?  Build your own computer?  Build your own TV?  Take out your own appendix?

Most people these days are specialists in something and depend on others for various goods and services.  If only for the sake of time.  Who has time to do all of that for themselves?  The Amish come as close as anyone I've seen and even they are dependent on the income they get from selling their produce, quilts, and furniture.

quote>

I couldn't agree more with that.  I really get irritated when I hear rich people claim that they "did it themselves."  The rich, more than anyone else, are entirely dependent on far more people than normal people.  How many people worked hard in your company to make you rich?  How many people did it take to build your factories?  How many people bought your products or used your services.  In the end, the person at the top who "did it himself," was nothing more than a sprocket in the machine.  Yet he gets paid lots more than everyone else.  The rich have never, ever done anything themselves!  Also true for the rest of us, but doubly true for the rich.

Even the Amish are dependent on each other and dependent on those who spend their money to buy their goods and use their services. 

The world is interdependent.  Anyone who thinks they are completely independent is fooling himself or herself.

ISF

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

 why don't we just set everything up where the program exists, and if you want to take advantage of it, you start chipping in for it.  If you don't want anything to do with the program, you don't pay taxes for it.quote>

okay . . . so if my neighbor doesn't want to pay the taxes to support the fire department, we just say, too bad and let his house burn down?

Remind me not to vote for you  quote>

Well, that wasn't quite what I had in mind, but I did say that I would be waiting to see what sort of responses it got, as well as the fact that I didn't explain it properly.

Emergency services are something that everyone should have access to, and everyone should have to support.  Outside of that though, things like Social Security or other welfare programs would be what I was thinking of.  If you don't want to have social security checks later on in your life, you don't have to put into it.

Now, with my explanation more complete, I await any ideas, as well as verbal commitments to vote for whoever is running against me in some yet-to-be-determined election.

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Frankie_Grove said  Last of all, just in case anyone hasn't noticed, America's socialists (other than Liberals) do have their own party...the American Socialist Movement (Otherwise known as the Nazi Party..). If such a "flawless" form of government is portrayed in such negative light, it would never be accepted anyways.quote>

Nazis are the extreme Right (Fascism). Communists are the extreme Left. Socialists are Left of Center. Democrats are Less Left of Center. Authoritaruianism is Right of Center. Republicans are Less Right of Center. Let's get our facts straight before we associate Socialists with Fascists.quote>

I am well aware of the right and left standings of various parties. But the Nazi Party does in fact call themselves the "American Socialist Movement" or the "American National Socialist Movement". I have no control over this, I'm am simply stating the fact.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

I don't think Socialism will ever come to America. The only reason Europe implemented Socialism (Socialist Economic System that is) is because of the stock market crash in the US in the 1930's. (Europe was hit harder than the US by the crisis). It would take a major or catastrophic event to event make Americans learn towards the system. quote>

I'm afraid that's incorrect. Both France and Britain....[deleted to save space].....manufacturing and large public works schemes.quote>

The damage was significant enough that the economy switched to a Socialist one, therefore the faster recovering came from the fact that the government took control. Government control would have allowed stability to return rather quickly.

Not too sure what education you have had in socialism, but in Europe the socialist governments don't go round raking private property..........That would be a Communist, would seem some people aren't able to distinguish between them for some reason.....quote>

There are varying degrees of Socialism. As I have read, as well as taken in government classes, some Socialist nations do in fact rid themselves of private property.

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

 I believe in absolutely no dependence on others (this is only a personal belief). quote>

Absolutely no dependence?  That is practically impossible in today's world.  Do you grow your own food?  Manufacture your own car?  Refine your own oil?  Build your own computer?  Build your own TV?  Take out your own appendix?quote>

Independent in a sense that I work for my own money, I pay for my own things. I never ask anyone for help, nor do I ever ask anyone for money. When I was younger, I learned fairly quickly that if I wanted anything, the money would come out of my own pockets. Sure.. not every kid on the planet was raised to be independent from their parents, but they learn real quick when they get out in the real world.

Originally posted by: zelgadis

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

 I believe in absolutely no dependence on others (this is only a personal belief).

quote>

Absolutely no .....[Edited for Space]....dependent on the income they get from selling their produce, quilts, and furniture.

q

[belfastuniguy 18]

The damage was significant enough that the economy switched to a Socialist one, therefore the faster recovering came from the fact that the government took control. Government control would have allowed stability to return rather quicklyquote>

I'm afraid your again incorrect. The British economy did not have socialist ideas until after the second world war with the establishment of nationalised industry, a national health service, education for all and various other things. The effects of the second world war started the social government agenda and that only lasted till the 1980's when we moved to a 'mixed' economy.

After the Great Depression the UK economy did not fundamentally change, we survived and moved on quickly as we had a very very stong economic base in manufacturing and financial services as well as being able to freely trade within the Empire.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

 I believe in absolutely no dependence on others (this is only a personal belief). quote>

Absolutely no dependence?  That is practically impossible in today's world.  Do you grow your own food?  Manufacture your own car?  Refine your own oil?  Build your own computer?  Build your own TV?  Take out your own appendix?quote>

Independent in a sense that I work for my own money, I pay for my own things. I never ask anyone for help, nor do I ever ask anyone for money.  quote>

Ah.  If that is what you are talking about, I'm all for it.

When I was younger, I learned fairly quickly that if I wanted anything, the money would come out of my own pockets. Sure.. not every kid on the planet was raised to be independent from their parents, but they learn real quick when they get out in the real world. quote>

Some of them never do figure it out.

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove Rich people do not just suddenly get rich..(unless it was inheritance or something). Most of the wealthy did in fact start out with nothing. So a self-made millionaire did work for that money. It's normally no easy task to get rich, so all of the wealthy must have worked quite hard to earn that money, right?

Now there are CEO's who claim they did it all by themselves, we all know that is never true.quote>

 

Perhaps they work "hard."  But in the pantheon of "hard work," the rich often rank near the bottom.  Who works harder?  The coal miner or the wealthy coal mine owner?

Members of the Walton family are amongst the top ten richest people in the world.  Who works harder?  The Waltons or the store clerks who bust their underpaid rears all day long working at Wal-Mart?  

As I see it, so-called "hard work" has little to do with getting rich.  Most get rich by being clever enough to manipulate the system and get more than their share.  Granted, this is not always the case, but it is the case quite a lot.

There are very few rich people who truly give back to those who built their empires.  So, if they're too selfish to do it, I say make the government force them to do it.

ISF

[belfastuniguy 18]

It depends really, yes some rich people have worked hard to get where they are and others have not, like the Waltons as you said. My parents started off alright, but they worked hard and built up a property development firm here in Belfast and now we are doing very very well indeed. Some other factors have influenced that, but primarily their hard work.

Just like the first Waltons worked hard to establish and grow their business. Getting rich today can have more to do about playing the financial game and doing well from it. I see no problem in someone making lots of money as long as they pay their taxs then no-one should care what they do. As long as they stay legal then they can make as much money as they want and government or anyone else should not stop them.

Living in the UK I appreciate that we pay taxes to help people not so well-off by giving free health and education, social welfare and supporting additional government investment in areas of economic hardship and I don't mind that, but the rich in society should not be targeted simply because they have money.

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy The Nazi party started as a socialist party, however it quickly became nothing like a socialist party. So the comparsion of socialism to Nazism is not only highly inaccurate but also offensive.

Again some people are confusing communist and socialism, Socialist governments DO NOT control industry or take private property, that is COMMUNISM.

As Barbarossa stated both socialist and capitalist ideals can get along very well together in a country and Europe is the best example and the UK the most successful.quote>

Agreed, many people may find that post offensive because it implies that socialism = nazism, and its simply not the case.  A cheap scare tactic, in my opinion. Poor show...

The only reason that Hitler was able to manipulate his people was to hide behind the veil of the illusion of socialism.  A mistake we are not likely to make anytime soon...  I think socialism is a safe option now.

Now for my two cents:

Ideally, I prefer socialism. However, I don't think that it would work in a system as corrupt as my country. Hell, the government is even doing it now.  Jobs that the military was intended to perform are now being outsourced and subcontracted to companies such as blackwater and Halliburton/KBR, costing the American taxpayers trillions of dollars, and allowing the corporations access to excessive prosperity.  If complete and utter socialism were enacted today in America, I fear that schemes and dirty business deals such as these would become so widespread as to cause the economic meltdown already looming over America's gargantuan and egotistical head.  Think about it...  If the government had complete (keyword: complete, unlike Hillary's healthcare plan) control over utilities, healthcare, etc, etc, the government would have every reason to initiate these types of deals across the board, and justify astronomical tax increases, at the benefit of the private corporations, and the misfortune of the American citizen.

/me gets down from his soapbox

[krbe 193]

You may well call it a scare tactic to comapre the nazis with socialist policies, but the truth is that due to the state Germany was in after the First World War, getting the working classes with them was imperative to gain power. Now, the important thing that divided the communists and nazis, is that communists look outwards to the rest of the world, while Nazism sought to protect what was German. Hitler wasn't especially fond of the differences between the rich and poor in the German community, and the elimination of unemployment was on of the most important goals.

Also, in the discussion of Nazi policies, welfare, industrial rebuilding, employment and so on is almost always left out. Instead, the focus tend to be on the mas murders, expansion, rearmament and the Nazi myths (the National part of its name).

[saltandsauce 0]

i would like to have nationalised services where competition does NOT bring benefits and i know this first hand

Railways

bus regulation (owned by the local council and the buses are limited to the councils that are served by it

Healthcare (you CAN go private)

State Education (again you can go public(private)

water regulation in the same way as buses but the catchment is the pipe range

postal service (who could deal with a million post boxes)

no companies should operate outside their base country since that leads to multinationals and that leads to dependance and that leads to recession

this "interdependance" doesn't seem to be remotley realistic since your economy is tangled with the other countries in the same way complete dependants are

[belfastuniguy 18]

saltandsauce that is an incredibly unrelaistic situation. The UK has also traded with other nations. Our companies are some of the largest in the world. We are the largest exporter of banking and financial services and a hell of a lot more besides.

Nationalised rail, post, water, electricity and public transport would cause the economy to go into meltdown. The vast amount of money that would be wasted is too horrendous to think about. You would have to pay off shareholder and there would be no private investment in national infrastructure. You really have not thought those proposals through carefully enough.

This is the 21st century where trade with other nations and the operation of British companies in foreign markets and foreign companies in the UK is a good thing. It assists in providing greater choice, lower prices, greater competition which results in higher quality goods and a focus on innovation.

If you really want nationalised services then expect slow, late, old and less trains on the tracks. You can forget about developing high-speed services across the UK, important rail line upgrades etcetera. The post willl be late and subject to vast deficits, water infrastructure will go without the tremendous investment currently going into it abd public transport will suffer with no competition leading to a monopoly, higher fares, poorer service and under investment.

I think I'll keep are they are in the UK thanks.........

[BurroDiablo 222]

I'm all for Nationalisation but in some service fields [like transport] its just not worth the trouble. Its not like me to speak out against something Socialist like this, but look at the old Japanese National Railways... they had to force that service into Private ownership because its debt was reaching over $200 Billion. Private enterprise takes the strain of debt off the hands of the Government and onto someone else... means the Government can focus its efforts on other things, like the NHS.

Still, I think Nationalised Electricity/Water/Gas could work with a degree of tweaking... don't ask me to explain it though, I really don't feel like writing an essay... lol

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

El Burro said: Still, I think Nationalised Electricity/Water/Gas could work with a degree of tweaking... don't ask me to explain it though, I really don't feel like writing an essay... lolquote>

You don't have to explain it, unless you have the hopeless idea of educating the idiot. There are certain industries for every country that should be controlled by the government. This includes power, water, education, health-care, and transportation. There are others I am likely leaving out, but that is irrelevant. Now, before conservatives have a heart attack, let me explain. The industries I have mentioned are all crucial to the national infrastructure and the well-being of the populace. Most of the arguments we hear from nay-sayers revolve around capitalism and misunderstood rights. Everyone is entitled to live, and to have the ability to pursue their own view of liberty.   This requires a level playing field, in order to maximize the unique characteristics of the individual.  There is no use in whining and complaining about paying for someone else's welfare, when the fact of the matter is that without universal standards, we only degrade and remove the abilities of our fellow citizens. To say otherwise is to acknowledge selfishness and promote a complete disregard for your fellow citizens, whether you agree with their viewpoint or not.

Barbarossaquote>

There is a middle road that's possible too: Regulations require power companies that own the infrastructure to deliver power from other companies at market price, without the government owning anything. The same is true for the telecom business, and rail transport has been successfully privatised or partly privatised many places in Europe (I want Deutsche Bahn to take care of my long-distance trains!). The only things not required to be run for profit ( health care and education) should remain mostly in government hands.

[belfastuniguy 18]

^^^ agree completely with you on that.

The government owning and running transport, water, electricity, does not work Europe has tried that an it has failed. Government and body regulation is perfectly acceptable. Without the money from private companies the required investment would not be made and in the long-term that leads to massive problems.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[krbe 193]

You should get the EU to rule the anti-trust courts. USD 660M fines at least makes for some good headlines.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Frankie_Grove 32]

On the issue of nationalizing railroads...that is never a good thing, or at least it has yet to be successful. In the United States, believe it or not, we did have our ventures in nationalization of railroads. In the Post-World War II era, railroads suffered increasing maintenance costs, loss of customers to trucking on America's new Interstates, as well as overall crumbling infrastructure. The 1960's was not as harsh on the railroads, but by the mid-1970's, all of the railroad companies in the Northeastern United States bankrupted. As a response, a government owned company, Conrail (Consolidated Northeastern Railroads) was formed to take control of these bankrupted railroads. By the 1980's, the Southern railroads went through significant change in order to avoid the same fate as the North. Thus, mega-mergers came about, CSX (Chessie System + Seaboard System), Norfolk Southern (Norfolk & Western + Southern), overnight thousands of miles of tracks were abandoned..only the highest traffic density lines were saved from scrap.

At the same time, government owned Conrail was in enormous debt, so much debt that by the late 1990's they could no longer take it, and the company was chopped up between CSX and NS. (So now the North and South are controlled by the two Southern super-railroads). It was the final nail in the coffin of America's national railways.

Of course...we've all seen the other side of railroad nationalization, Amtrak, yet another failure by the government to nationalize rail.

[southsider 0]

I don't think the government should have absolute power over the economy and people's money. Socialism looks good on paper, but socialism has never been succesful. Capitalism is the best form of economy and government to run because it gives people the freedom to do what they want with their money and is the most succesful system. Socialism drags everyone down while capitalism makes everyone better.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Socialism drags everyone down while capitalism makes everyone better.quote>

Not really......

Capitalism is a fantastic system for those that are able to work the system and benefit from it. If your not in that position then capitalism will ignore you and move ahead without you. That's why most developed nations have a mixed economy that easily combine some socialist ideals while allowing capitalism to flourish, example would be the United Kingdom.

[krbe 193]

Ask the Chileans if they prefered Pinochet's capitalism over Allende's socialist one.

[panthersimcity4 162]

In random news...

Pope criticizes the 'cruelty' of capitalism

“Confronted with the abuse of economic power, with the cruelty of capitalism that degrades man into merchandise, we have begun to see more clearly the dangers of wealth and we understand in a new way what Jesus intended in warning us about wealth.”

Ouch, this coming from the most conservative person I can think of...

[fukuda 351]

They are not mutually exclusive, we are both here

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4 In random news...

Pope criticizes the 'cruelty' of capitalism

“Confronted with the abuse of economic power, with the cruelty of capitalism that degrades man into merchandise, we have begun to see more clearly the dangers of wealth and we understand in a new way what Jesus intended in warning us about wealth.”

Ouch, this coming from the most conservative person I can think of...

quote>

Ouch! That's quite hypocritical coming from one of the Opus Dei leaders

(Opus Dei is known as the Holy Mafia here)