Socialism & Capitalism

[scalyblue]

Hi, new to these forums, but couldn't resist weighing in (briefly )

I'd have to go with capitalism, personally. Additionally, I would like to share a quote:

"If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action."
-Ludwig von Mises

A fallacy. Disputing Laissez-faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness does not automatically dispute it for every kind of government action, because not every government action involves financial profit/loss for the individual causing the action, where in business it typically does.

 

[connorkimbro]

Hi, new to these forums, but couldn't resist weighing in (briefly )

I'd have to go with capitalism, personally. Additionally, I would like to share a quote:

"If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action."
-Ludwig von Mises

A fallacy. Disputing Laissez-faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness does not automatically dispute it for every kind of government action, because not every government action involves financial profit/loss for the individual causing the action, where in business it typically does.

Are you saying that in a socalist democracy, the majority (individuals causing the action) aren't going to initiate government action that benefits - financially - the majority? Whats the purpose of the system, then?

I think his quote is exaggerating to prove a point; not EVERY government action, as you point out, has to do with financial systems. I'm not an anarchist - I believe in government. As far as economics go, though, I'm pretty close to laissez faire capitalist with very little (though perhaps not a complete lack of) government control.

 

[Sloth]

There we go.

http://s2.largeimagehost.com/img/untilted/XQsQehF/47captialist+vs+social.jpg.html

 

[Grimstad]

I agree with the concept of socially regulated capitalism. Any type of government without regulation is prone to tyranny. The people must have a voice and the rights of the individual must be respected. I'm a Libertarian at heart but I believe in removing health care from the whims of a capitalistic mechanism. I look at it as a form of forced charity. I am a charitable person but if given the "option" of making an extra payment to support a charity (such as health care for others) I am just as likely to spend that money on a new 52 inch flat screen TV. I did vote capitalism because if given the choice I would rather have the "naturalistic" option of fending for myself. Law of the jungle and all that.

 

[blinddesign]

I'm a Libertarian at heart but I believe in removing health care from the whims of a capitalistic mechanism. I look at it as a form of forced charity.

If you're talking about the American healthcare system, it has never been at the whims of the capitalistic mechanism- it was more of a fascist system, giving the illusion of private control but with the government behind it all the way, pulling the levers. Also, forced charity?! I've never heard of such an oxymoron! That's definitely socialism/communism: a force-it-down-your-throat, your-a-selfish-bastard-if-you-don't kind of charity.

 

[nasher168]

Mostly socialism, but with a lot of elements of capitalism kept in. Competition, for example, is essential for the economy.

 

[DeHerg]

Normaly I would prefer this

* My Idea of an ideal State(short Form): multiple Forms of Society(Socialism, Communism, social Marked Economy, free Marked, Dictatorship, Anarchism...) exist along Side from which you can always choose to leave, join or just visit. This Patch of Society's is "administrated" by a Minimalistic State(Administrators selected by Tests) who just have to care about: comparable Education(to ensure Citizens are mature to choose Society no matter in which they grew up), Defense, a stable Currency (of course the Single Society,´s can(not must) have their own Currency,´s as well the Mayor one is mainly for between Society trade) and that a Society doesn't prevent its Citizens from leaving if they want

but since I have only the crappy Choice in this Poll between
hardcore Anarchcapitalism and completely state ruled Distribution of Goods...
I choose the later (as long as the State is no Dictatorship)

 

[Experiment47]

Socialism - a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. Also distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

FAIL. This is communism.

 

[DeHerg]

Socialism - a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. Also distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

FAIL. This is communism.

no
in Communism you wouldn,´t get Paid at all because there would be no more Money

 

[Nogre]

Hmmm...put capital in the hands of corrupt corporal giants or corrupt government officials... Where's the option where the workers own the capital, making both competition and workers' rights better? For this is the answer I choose, with a free market allowing private enterprise in everything but things that just aren't feasible (like roads or currancy), and allowing the government to only handle the latter.

 

[richi1173]

Socialism - a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. Also distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

FAIL. This is communism.

MEGA FAIL. In communism there is no state government; hence: "WHICH THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION ARE OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY THE STATE"

 

[xman]

The term 'Communism' as Marx intends it has become so skewed by disinformation that it now has a defacto misapplied definition. when people say, "Those Communists" they can't actually be referring to somebody, but we know they are referring to State Capital Socialists.

 

[DeHerg]

The term 'Communism' as Marx intends it has become so skewed by disinformation that it now has a defacto misapplied definition. when people say, "Those Communists" they can't actually be referring to somebody, but we know they are referring to State Capital Socialists.

this is not completely correct(Problem with the second part).
When referring to the former Soviet Union(and East Europe, and North Korea...etc.) they where Communist(or at least they pretend to). The Term Communist mean that you strive for a Communist Society not that you already had achieved that Goal (or are still on a State Capital Level or even be in a capitalistic free market Society)