Page 8 of 11 [ 160 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,926

03 Mar 2012, 11:41 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T94aJToB_M[/youtube]


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,081
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Mar 2012, 11:51 pm

marshall wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
marshall wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
LKL wrote:
You don't have to take that on faith; what you should accept is the evidence that ACORN itself did not commit fraud, but was defrauded by some of its employees and did its best to make sure that no actual voter fraud occurred. Unlike Breitbart's pal O'Keefe:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/01/11/ ... il-for-it/


The boss bears full and total responsibility for whatever any of his employees do. The wrong doing happened on his watch. He gets to climb the scaffold.

If we hold management responsible for what the crew does, then perhaps they will be more careful in who they hire.

ruveyn

In that case Florida's governor should be in jail.




Should be, but will he ever be? Jeb Bush may, after all, run for prez someday!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I'm talking about Florida's current medicare-fraudster governor who makes Jeb Bush look like Mother Teresa.


Oh, that Lurch looking Motherf***er who's guilty of medicare fraud! I agree 100%.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,374
Location: In my workshop drafting non-shiny things.

04 Mar 2012, 12:29 am

marshall wrote:
It's the same kind of cynical reasoning as when you hear conservatives saying Democrats want people on welfare so they will have votes. Or that "Occupy" protests and such are purely about "envy" and wanting other people's money. Maybe if both sides would simultaneously stop the simplistic emotionally projectory accusations there could be more dialog. The problem though is that even after dropping all the rhetorical pretext there's often still a fundamental divide over certain values that can't be resolved through acknowledging facts and utilitarian arguments.

There's an inherent problem with those bargaining chips though - ie. one side *is* trying to rip down the system in trade for something new and it seems like the only objection to it being said is if its said by someone who disagrees that its a good thing. Middle-ground is clearly somewhere else; where though I have no idea.


_________________
Amphibologies are. The cat's pajamas.


blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,027

04 Mar 2012, 1:43 am

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
marshall wrote:
It's the same kind of cynical reasoning as when you hear conservatives saying Democrats want people on welfare so they will have votes. Or that "Occupy" protests and such are purely about "envy" and wanting other people's money. Maybe if both sides would simultaneously stop the simplistic emotionally projectory accusations there could be more dialog. The problem though is that even after dropping all the rhetorical pretext there's often still a fundamental divide over certain values that can't be resolved through acknowledging facts and utilitarian arguments.

There's an inherent problem with those bargaining chips though - ie. one side *is* trying to rip down the system in trade for something new and it seems like the only objection to it being said is if its said by someone who disagrees that its a good thing. Middle-ground is clearly somewhere else; where though I have no idea.


So what is this thing the republicans are trying to replace the status quo with? Is it the vast expansion of federal powers that George W. presided over?



techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,374
Location: In my workshop drafting non-shiny things.

04 Mar 2012, 11:01 am

Good rhetorical question.

My question to a leftist (the current alphas left of center) - if swapping out as much capitalism for socialism is the optimal most fair, most kind, most humane, unlike our current racist-by-definition system, why on earth would you make your presence known dominantly with polemics when any adult *knows* that if you have the winning hand of cards, the sheer upper hand in the argument - ie. when you know you're absolutely right and have all of the facts in a row - you get far more support by doggedly sticking to the facts, explaining inside and out what the spirit of your core beliefs are will gain you way more integrity/character PR and you leave the other side either sounding shrill or, conversely, agreeing with you? There should be absolutely nothing to hide or publicly deny either if you have the superior path because the superior path will sell itself. People want better lives, people want more out of things, and if you can put pen to paper on how we could have both a better nation under a dominant blend of socialism AND be debt neutral - I'm all ears! I want to see a proposal that's been well documented and reviewed by top notch accountants and economists who tend neutral on the subject.

That's the problem though, for sweeping change like that it hasn't been a process of get the math, worth the dollars out, and sell it on its merits, but rather its been divide and conquer, the centrist Democrats have the name 'blue dog' on account to how the new left treats them, and essentially that divide and conquer is divide and conquer by handouts - whether its unions, whether its the dole, whether its anything that you can get someone to vote on an elected official for 'Will they still give me x, y, or z?". That's not selling, its bribing. I mean I get this much, I truly and honestly do; that there are plenty of Democrats who are democrats because their parents were, their grandparents were, etc. and they don't pay a lot of attention to politics but know the stereotype - Republicans being country club, Democrats being common man, albeit the new left and new right really change that in a lot of ways that they either haven't kept up with or don't want to because they'd be too ashamed to what their neoliberal brethren did which was to switch sides and become Republican. You also do have both the religious and 'religious' Democrats who have a faith in the heart of what more social welfare and equality mean; they're truly nice people, they mean well, albeit their not particularly there on the math and they have the ethical policy of "Its the thought that counts", essentially meaning that they'll do whatever they can to make the world a better place (which I'm all for - I love that side of them and try to go that way myself, PLENTY of Republicans do) but at the same time with "Its the thought that counts" they then leave all objective measure of results or planning for results at the door. What tends to be the result of ideas handled like that? Typically the exact opposite of the result they wanted brought to them by none other than the law of unintended consequences. Republicans can see that and it drives them crazy, and then it gets even more saddening when instead of a lesson learned it gets thrown back at Republicans as having thrown the poison pill in the mix somewhere!

My present take on the US's social right and left vitriol though is this: GREATER TRANSPARENCY, also *real* consideration for outcome no matter which side is spearheading a bill. Seeing things taken to side-committees outside of congress is garbage. Chimera bills are garbage, people either voting on something that's 2000 pages and due in three days or delegating one particular person to have their staff go over it and make the consensus opinion - is garbage. I still don't think, anywhere in Washingon DC between Republicans and Democrats, that there's been a conversation in the last 20 years where they put ego at the door, spoke about their own take on the issues, economy, foreign matters, etc. candidly while trying to see the other side's points in earnest and pick them apart. If that did happen I can tell you who it was - John McCain and Joe Lieberman - RINO and DINO. :lol:


_________________
Amphibologies are. The cat's pajamas.


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,200

04 Mar 2012, 4:00 pm

Quote:
My question to a leftist (the current alphas left of center) - if swapping out as much capitalism for socialism is the optimal most fair, most kind, most humane, unlike our current racist-by-definition system, why on earth would you make your presence known dominantly with polemics when any adult *knows* that if you have the winning hand of cards, the sheer upper hand in the argument......


Here's a tip, if you can't even accurately characterize the arguments and beliefs of the other side, you are lost in your own head.



techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,374
Location: In my workshop drafting non-shiny things.

04 Mar 2012, 4:11 pm

simon_says wrote:
Quote:
My question to a leftist (the current alphas left of center) - if swapping out as much capitalism for socialism is the optimal most fair, most kind, most humane, unlike our current racist-by-definition system, why on earth would you make your presence known dominantly with polemics when any adult *knows* that if you have the winning hand of cards, the sheer upper hand in the argument......


Here's a tip, if you can't even accurately characterize the arguments and beliefs of the other side, you are lost in your own head.

Or there's the possibility that what comes across when you try to get a big picture read of it is a hot mess.

I occasionally find a few people with clearly defined ideas, which is refreshing when it happens but ultimately they seem to do a better job of selling the notion that it's skewed idealism (based on fundamental tenets about psychopathy of the rich and other similar things) rather than anything I can tie out with reality.


_________________
Amphibologies are. The cat's pajamas.


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,000
Location: Turkey

04 Mar 2012, 7:41 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Quote:
My question to a leftist (the current alphas left of center) - if swapping out as much capitalism for socialism is the optimal most fair, most kind, most humane, unlike our current racist-by-definition system, why on earth would you make your presence known dominantly with polemics when any adult *knows* that if you have the winning hand of cards, the sheer upper hand in the argument......


Here's a tip, if you can't even accurately characterize the arguments and beliefs of the other side, you are lost in your own head.

Or there's the possibility that what comes across when you try to get a big picture read of it is a hot mess.

I occasionally find a few people with clearly defined ideas, which is refreshing when it happens but ultimately they seem to do a better job of selling the notion that it's skewed idealism (based on fundamental tenets about psychopathy of the rich and other similar things) rather than anything I can tie out with reality.

I guess I'm not able to see the conservative/republican take on things as not also being ideologically driven. Creating public fear over rising government debt during the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression while at the same time campaigning on even larger tax cuts that will actually reduce tax revenue seems rather duplicitous to me. It would be one thing if they were merely focusing on cutting spending and reducing inefficiency. It doesn't seem like their priorities are straight unless you interpret what they're doing as an ideologically motivated "shock doctrine" or "starve the beast" policy.

I also think the left is actually more in tune with reality than any conservative is willing to give them credit for. It's not that "the rich" are all psychopaths, it's that some aspects of the economy really are a zero-sum game where one group can accumulate more at the expense of another in a systemic way. That it's really happening is independent from any moral angle you want to put on it.



techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,374
Location: In my workshop drafting non-shiny things.

04 Mar 2012, 9:53 pm

Good answer and completely fair.

marshall wrote:
I guess I'm not able to see the conservative/republican take on things as not also being ideologically driven. Creating public fear over rising government debt during the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression while at the same time campaigning on even larger tax cuts that will actually reduce tax revenue seems rather duplicitous to me. It would be one thing if they were merely focusing on cutting spending and reducing inefficiency. It doesn't seem like their priorities are straight unless you interpret what they're doing as an ideologically motivated "shock doctrine" or "starve the beast" policy.

I don't really think anyone 100% knows what's going on, not even including the supposed players in Washington. I think starve the beast is a big part of it, that and anything they can do to motivate businesses to return and add fuel to the fire for the economy - mainly in the belief that if you can gin up the economy hit a certain golden ratio where you have maximum revenue due to maximum dollars to graze off of. Keynsians would say we're well below that ratio in taxation, a lot of fiscal conservatives would argue that even if we've dropped taxes ever since the 1950's pretty much one thing has changed - we weren't competing with the whole world for our own jobs in the same way that we are now. I think what's going to happen regardless of who gains power - whether its conservatives or liberals - we'll have to pull our belts in.

marshall wrote:
I also think the left is actually more in tune with reality than any conservative is willing to give them credit for. It's not that "the rich" are all psychopaths, it's that some aspects of the economy really are a zero-sum game where one group can accumulate more at the expense of another in a systemic way. That it's really happening is independent from any moral angle you want to put on it.
I used to not believe any of that, and I was mostly fed the idea that if I went to college, got a good degree, and had a good work ethic anything could happen. Found out quickly that in the professional world I can be fired by twits or people who just find me 'wierd' as I can anywhere else. To this day I have jobs that I can keep for six, seven years, whatever it is because I'm dealing with people who are real, level-headed, grounded, etc. and then if I have to start a new job I can find a bunch of twits who won't train, have very strange cooked up notions about what a person's supposed to think, how their supposed to walk, talk, look, etc. and - they don't always mean ill but - their ignorance can still choke a person out. Also I'd agree with you that - while I don't think economies are completely zero sum games I also realize that the job market requires skilled people, that skilled players make the best companies, and not everyone has that in them, and essentially we've forced companies and corporations to essentially be our system and carry everyone whether they can afford to or not.

It really seems close to a no-win in our generation, BUT I do see it this way: even most capitalists would tell you that they aren't in love with the system, its not about that, its a sense they have that its the second worst to anything else. We're in a spot right now also where technology is really on the move in ways that it never has been before. Today people are wrangling each other over whether there's enough food to go around, whether there's enough oil, what we'll do about climate change, what we'll do about the population peak around 2050; I really think we should be much more interested in science and technology than we should be having it out with each other over who has the least odious recipe for a crap sandwich.


_________________
Amphibologies are. The cat's pajamas.


Longshanks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2012
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 558
Location: At an undisclosed airbase at Shangri-la

05 Mar 2012, 10:10 pm

Well, I think it's time for an experienced tax professional who votes after looking at history and the numbers instead of voting with his heart.

To begin with, realistically, capitalism and socialisim are the same in the sense that both are forms of economic feudalism. Where they differ is as follows:

(1) In capitalism, the enterprenuers become the rich kings and lords. In socialism, it's the public officials who become the rich kings and lords.

(2) In capitalisim, society is productive and improvements in the quality of life do come, but not all at once. Socialism is the opposite because there is no incentive to invent or create because any extra wealth one may receive from their extra effort gets shared by the rest.

(3) All of the worlds great socialist countries have one thing in common: They all have failed. Russia, all of the countries of the old Eastern Block, Britain, France, Italy, and let's not forget Greece. And oh yes, there's China. Now China is converting from socialism to fascisim, which is socialism with property ownership - which is still a form of economic feudilism. Ultimately, it too will fail.

Of course, let us not forget the Georgetown economics professor who was on the news last year for failing his whole class. He gave his students a choice: be graded by capitalism or socialism. The class chose socialism - which meant that the grades would be averaged together and everyone would get the same grade. The first exam resulted in every one getting a C. The second resulted in a D. The third resulted in an F. The students got upset and demanded to know why they were flunked. After a long discussion, it turned out that the "A" and "B" students quit studying for the exams. They were sick and tired of puting in the extra work to pull the weights of those who wouldn't work as hard. Thus the lesson: Socialism was designed by lazy people for lazy people. Society becomes stunted. But in capitalism, there is more hard work and risk taking because there is incentive to make a profit - and thus society advances.

Now, of course, there will be failures to communicate, because some people you just can't reach.

But I am going to be very entertained by watching the socialists use their nonsense to try to tear this up. :lmao:

Longshanks


_________________
Supporter of the Brian Terry Foundation @ www.honorbrianterry.com. Special Agent Brian Terry (1970-2010) was murdered as a direct result of Operation Fast & Furious - which Barry O won't discuss - wonder why?


techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,374
Location: In my workshop drafting non-shiny things.

05 Mar 2012, 10:25 pm

Longshanks wrote:
Of course, let us not forget the Georgetown economics professor who was on the news last year for failing his whole class. He gave his students a choice: be graded by capitalism or socialism. The class chose socialism - which meant that the grades would be averaged together and everyone would get the same grade. The first exam resulted in every one getting a C. The second resulted in a D. The third resulted in an F. The students got upset and demanded to know why they were flunked. After a long discussion, it turned out that the "A" and "B" students quit studying for the exams. They were sick and tired of puting in the extra work to pull the weights of those who wouldn't work as hard. Thus the lesson: Socialism was designed by lazy people for lazy people. Society becomes stunted. But in capitalism, there is more hard work and risk taking because there is incentive to make a profit - and thus society advances.

:lmao:

How dare you say that though!! That's taking right wing talking points in Rush Limbaugh MLA citation straight from email chains where the Marine who did 15,000 tours of Iraq makes the great socialist professor run out of the room crying by asking him why the rock in his hand hasn't evolved into an animal!

....sadly I think a lot of people find their adjustment with the world by running from reality and, those who can't bring themselves to do the same essentially have to pay their tab in addition to their own.


_________________
Amphibologies are. The cat's pajamas.


Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,926

05 Mar 2012, 10:49 pm

Longshanks wrote:
Well, I think it's time for an experienced tax professional who votes after looking at history and the numbers instead of voting with his heart.


This is a great start - flaunting professional certifications that, in all likelihood, you'll give people no means to verify and which are, regardless, really are not that relevant to your argument.

Quote:
To begin with, realistically, capitalism and socialisim are the same in the sense that both are forms of economic feudalism. Where they differ is as follows:


Wait a minute, since you're talking about how you actually vote why the hell are you contrasting socialism and capitalism? Most parties (at least most parties that anyone ever votes for) in the US aren't socialist. Do you honestly sit down and think "I could voter for the Workers of the World Party or I could vote for one of the other parties" each election?

Quote:
(1) In capitalism, the enterprenuers become the rich kings and lords. In socialism, it's the public officials who become the rich kings and lords.

(2) In capitalisim, society is productive and improvements in the quality of life do come, but not all at once. Socialism is the opposite because there is no incentive to invent or create because any extra wealth one may receive from their extra effort gets shared by the rest.

(3) All of the worlds great socialist countries have one thing in common: They all have failed. Russia, all of the countries of the old Eastern Block, Britain, France, Italy, and let's not forget Greece. And oh yes, there's China. Now China is converting from socialism to fascisim, which is socialism with property ownership - which is still a form of economic feudilism. Ultimately, it too will fail.


Strictly speaking, the central planners in the Soviet Union did use incentives and performance targets. While they were generally not as good as market-based incentives, they were effective enough to influence some factories to produce an enormous amount of industrial output, sufficient to have very negative environmental consequences (if you want, I can dig up a Microeconomics textbook that mentions environmental degradation via centrally decided performance targets as one of the failures of Centrally Planned economies).

Quote:
Of course, let us not forget the Georgetown economics professor who was on the news last year for failing his whole class. He gave his students a choice: be graded by capitalism or socialism. The class chose socialism - which meant that the grades would be averaged together and everyone would get the same grade. The first exam resulted in every one getting a C. The second resulted in a D. The third resulted in an F. The students got upset and demanded to know why they were flunked. After a long discussion, it turned out that the "A" and "B" students quit studying for the exams. They were sick and tired of puting in the extra work to pull the weights of those who wouldn't work as hard. Thus the lesson: Socialism was designed by lazy people for lazy people. Society becomes stunted. But in capitalism, there is more hard work and risk taking because there is incentive to make a profit - and thus society advances.


That story, I'm pretty sure, is made up. But, regardless, depending on the mindset of the people in the class, they could realize that they'd all benefit from studying and thus gain more of an incentive to play their small part to make sure the GPA remains high - you know, like how athletic teams work (I'll admit there's some selection bias in that motivated people join teams, but I'd say there's a similar selection bias in economics students).

Quote:
Now, of course, there will be failures to communicate, because some people you just can't reach.


If I were a socialist (and most democratic socialists aren't advocates of Soviet-style central planning - they're either market socialists or advocates of decentralized participatory planning) I would find your arguments utterly unconvincing.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,081
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Mar 2012, 11:33 pm

Longshanks wrote:
Well, I think it's time for an experienced tax professional who votes after looking at history and the numbers instead of voting with his heart.

To begin with, realistically, capitalism and socialisim are the same in the sense that both are forms of economic feudalism. Where they differ is as follows:

(1) In capitalism, the enterprenuers become the rich kings and lords. In socialism, it's the public officials who become the rich kings and lords.

(2) In capitalisim, society is productive and improvements in the quality of life do come, but not all at once. Socialism is the opposite because there is no incentive to invent or create because any extra wealth one may receive from their extra effort gets shared by the rest.

(3) All of the worlds great socialist countries have one thing in common: They all have failed. Russia, all of the countries of the old Eastern Block, Britain, France, Italy, and let's not forget Greece. And oh yes, there's China. Now China is converting from socialism to fascisim, which is socialism with property ownership - which is still a form of economic feudilism. Ultimately, it too will fail.

Of course, let us not forget the Georgetown economics professor who was on the news last year for failing his whole class. He gave his students a choice: be graded by capitalism or socialism. The class chose socialism - which meant that the grades would be averaged together and everyone would get the same grade. The first exam resulted in every one getting a C. The second resulted in a D. The third resulted in an F. The students got upset and demanded to know why they were flunked. After a long discussion, it turned out that the "A" and "B" students quit studying for the exams. They were sick and tired of puting in the extra work to pull the weights of those who wouldn't work as hard. Thus the lesson: Socialism was designed by lazy people for lazy people. Society becomes stunted. But in capitalism, there is more hard work and risk taking because there is incentive to make a profit - and thus society advances.

Now, of course, there will be failures to communicate, because some people you just can't reach.

But I am going to be very entertained by watching the socialists use their nonsense to try to tear this up. :lmao:

Longshanks


Change for the good of everyone within capitalist systems only work when the underclasses form unions, or progressive movements, and twist what they and their families need from their rich overlords. The funny thing is, organized labor and progressive movements are accused of being socialistic, and even communistic by the captains of industry and their conservative political allies. And by this, through non-stop propaganda, union busting, and use of false evidence (rigged tape used against ACORN), along with bullshit bumper sticker slogans screaming "class warfare," they are able to strangle progress through which capitalism can work for everyone.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,374
Location: In my workshop drafting non-shiny things.

06 Mar 2012, 8:45 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Change for the good of everyone within capitalist systems only work when the underclasses form unions, or progressive movements, and twist what they and their families need from their rich overlords. The funny thing is, organized labor and progressive movements are accused of being socialistic, and even communistic by the captains of industry and their conservative political allies. And by this, through non-stop propaganda, union busting, and use of false evidence (rigged tape used against ACORN), along with bullshit bumper sticker slogans screaming "class warfare," they are able to strangle progress through which capitalism can work for everyone.

In a lot of ways I'm a flaming neolib, as are my parents - hence I'd have to say I see both sides and also have a foot on each side of the line. I'd agree with you that certain amounts of that are needed to set up checks and balances, its also walking a fine line when the unions themselves have no checks on them and you end up with something like, say, the unions devouring Detroit or the teacher's unions essentially making education a teachers first students second sort of thing in net effect. I live near Cleveland, OH and I've noticed Buffalo also has similar policy - very strong liberal policies dragging down labor markets (both by business-unfriendly policy and by incredible amounts of embezzlement; Cleveland Division of Water being quite the topic lately on the later) and even straddling huge bodies of freshwater they just can't bring much back. I'm all for unions as long as they have some real accountability for the going concern of the specific industries they represent; without that you get a greedy SOB or two at their helm and you end up with the same kind of avarice in their ranks that you might tout for CEO's and big capitalists and then they themselves become the problem rather than the bargainers.

Keep in mind we *rely* on employers at present to essentially keep people fed and sheltered via provision of wages - in a way the free market system is essentially the primary welfare system. Done right its a blessing and its flexible enough to endure all kinds of problems and bounce back because its liquid and it moves on its own to fill the needs and opportunities that are out there; there's no human or group of humans who could ever centrally plan as efficiently and we're still several decades from any possibility of using AI in such a way.


_________________
Amphibologies are. The cat's pajamas.


TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

06 Mar 2012, 9:27 am

I think part of the problem is that people do not consider that you could have degrees of socialism and capitalism without one of them being overly dominant. In essence you use capitalism to check the problematic areas of socialism and socialism to check the problematic areas of capitalism.