Poll: Capitalism VS Communism VS Socialism
- Thread starter lenin_117
- Start date
And it's not free if you pay for it through the private sector either, but financing it through taxes gives it far more stability and much greater economies of scale than the private system.
It is free for those who don't pay taxes, like the unemployed. UK is not moving towards socialism. Going back a few decades UK had all these huge national monopolies, like BT (Telecoms), BA (Airways), BP (Petroleum), BS (Steel), BR (Railway), etc. From Thatcher onwards UK has become more capitalist, despite the New Labour rhetoric, they've lost their trade union roots, and is just as conservative as the Tories. Today, under new labour, schools are already being partly privatised (Academies); and there is some talk of privatising the NHS.TomNook said:
No option for Facism? What the hell kind of cop-out political debate is this!?
I'd sooner live in a dictatorship than I would in a capitalist democracy. You have just about the same freedom either way.
(Provided the Dictator actually cared for the people... Franco, in his early years for example... I know I'll get slapped for this, and I'm not saying that fabled German fool was right... But atleast you could leave the house unlocked knowing it was safe before the war.)
I don't quite get why you've used Anarchy as an option, but hell I'll run with it!
I'd sooner live in a dictatorship than I would in a capitalist democracy. You have just about the same freedom either way.
(Provided the Dictator actually cared for the people... Franco, in his early years for example... I know I'll get slapped for this, and I'm not saying that fabled German fool was right... But atleast you could leave the house unlocked knowing it was safe before the war.)
I don't quite get why you've used Anarchy as an option, but hell I'll run with it!
Thatcher couldn't privatise the NHS, so God help anyone else who tries. If they do, I intend to raisesuch a stink that they'll have to stop.
I'm sorry, but maybe you should blame it on the people who say they are Anarchists because they like flipping cars. All the people who say they are punk that I know are like that. Maybe you should make up your own stereotype for yourself if you're so sensitive about your label. Or maybe you just secretly crave chaos? Either or, doesn't matter to me, you just don't understand what I'm trying to say. There's a reason people call people punks. I wonder how that started?Ragdrazi said:
History has proven that socialism is fundamentally flawed as it depends on the desire of an individual not to better himself or herself or rather to better their lot in life which is a natural human trait (if not instinct). Capitalism on the other hand functions through competition. People naturally try to better their situation in life (little to no government interference necessary) and it is through this competition that capitalism has been so successful.
Having said that capitalist systems do go through periods of recession and even depression from time to time (partially through a natural cycle but they can be prolonged by outside interference usually from the government) however this is a small price to pay as a capitalistic system will inevitably turn itself around because individuals never stop competition and are always trying to better their situation.
Having said that capitalist systems do go through periods of recession and even depression from time to time (partially through a natural cycle but they can be prolonged by outside interference usually from the government) however this is a small price to pay as a capitalistic system will inevitably turn itself around because individuals never stop competition and are always trying to better their situation.
Well I disagree with you in part. I'm not sure if you agree with this, But I believe that capitalism is the best choice, but only when coupled with a hefty dose of socialism.Seekster said:
Free Health care, Free Public education is socialism.
I disagree with you that the depression capitalism goes through is a natural cycle. A lot of the cycles are because greedy assholes use their money as a fist and try to bully people around. (well they don't try as much as they succeed). Short selling and ridiculous CEO termination of contract payouts show us that.
The problem with the capitalism picture you paint is that there is no safety net. If someone fails at a risk they took, they are out on the street, no hope to get money, no hope to get a job. The society you paint is total crap. You NEED socialism in a functioning Capitalist society.
Perhaps, unfortunately socialism and capitalism do not function well in the same system, one tends to attempt to override the other.Arcticflame said:
I admit that in a full capitalistic system there is little room for error, it is somewhat like social darwinism which is not entirely fair, however capitalism has historically been far more successful economically than any socialist system.
To put my thoughts in the simplest of terms:
In capitalism some people "lose" and some people "win" (admitting that more people will "lose" than will "win")
In socialism nobody is allowed to "win" which leaves only one other alternative.
Still I can see that we will have to agree to disagree. No system is entirely flawless however I stand by the statement that capitalism is the most economically viable system (though perhaps not the most socially kind).
Socialism and integration would be my opinion. I believe it is the government's duty to provide its people with the vital elements of industrial civilization: water, power, food and infrastructure (roads, city/district-planning, public institutions, etc). I also believe in the freedom of the people to provide those for themselves or others (capitalism) outside of governmental matters of regulation, but which are subject to review and standardized grading for the awareness of the general customer.
So, in the great big debate about health care, I'm for having it both ways: keep HMO's while still opening up universal health care options. Give more jobs to doctors (we need those in the US) with standardized pay in public, governmental hospitals, and let HMO's compete among themselves with private offers for their own staff. The HMO's could then be considered 'higher class' for typically offering specialized services with higher pay or wages, while those who pay their taxes and have not he clout to buy a health plan could (and trust me, they would) take the option of standing in line for a doctor. It doesn't have to be one way only.
The government might as well open up 'general food stores' that sell simple vegetables, fruits, meats and dairy goods, with standardized wages for workers, mostly minimum wage (I'd suppose, having worked at Ralph's myself). This would create jobs while still allowing private enterprises to capitalize on specialization of product, services, and therefore wages, giving the people two forms of choice: simple and general, or complex and specialized at different prices. This way, the government wouldn't be letting the poorer classes down with simple jobs and products on offer. If a community is small enough and there are local, simple grocery store owners who depend on their business to survive, the government should use its discretion to not jeopardize its own people in this manner and decline to open up such establishments in those communities unless the people of those communities demand it. That is democracy.
Socialism: have it both ways.
So, in the great big debate about health care, I'm for having it both ways: keep HMO's while still opening up universal health care options. Give more jobs to doctors (we need those in the US) with standardized pay in public, governmental hospitals, and let HMO's compete among themselves with private offers for their own staff. The HMO's could then be considered 'higher class' for typically offering specialized services with higher pay or wages, while those who pay their taxes and have not he clout to buy a health plan could (and trust me, they would) take the option of standing in line for a doctor. It doesn't have to be one way only.
The government might as well open up 'general food stores' that sell simple vegetables, fruits, meats and dairy goods, with standardized wages for workers, mostly minimum wage (I'd suppose, having worked at Ralph's myself). This would create jobs while still allowing private enterprises to capitalize on specialization of product, services, and therefore wages, giving the people two forms of choice: simple and general, or complex and specialized at different prices. This way, the government wouldn't be letting the poorer classes down with simple jobs and products on offer. If a community is small enough and there are local, simple grocery store owners who depend on their business to survive, the government should use its discretion to not jeopardize its own people in this manner and decline to open up such establishments in those communities unless the people of those communities demand it. That is democracy.
Socialism: have it both ways.
So you're telling us that communism isn't anything remotely close to being practiced communism, but is instead more like a perfect utopian world where everyone is equal and happy, yet at the same time a totalitarian form of government that completely contradicts even the most basic of communist beleifs?lenin_117 said:
The OP doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, Marxs communism is a hell of a long way from Stalinism.
Communist leader is an oxymoron, just thought I'd point that out. If there is a defined leader then everyone does not have equal say and it is therefore not communism by definition.Lord Krunk said: