socialism, capitalism, anarchism- which do subscribe to?

Page 5 of 10 [ 157 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next


which do you think is the better system/ which do you think should be in place?
socialism 32%  32%  [ 18 ]
capitalism 18%  18%  [ 10 ]
anarchism 30%  30%  [ 17 ]
other 20%  20%  [ 11 ]
Total votes : 56

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 85
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 Oct 2011, 4:06 pm

peebo wrote:
the main problem, though, is that as capitalism homogenises and recuperates every alternative ideology, we are simply left with a raft of variations on capitalism under different names. given that it's a distinct possibility that capitalism itself might be a very bad system of social organisation, this is hardly an ideal state of affairs, is it?


In purely Darwinian terms, Capitalism wins the Struggle for Existence. Look how Socialism has failed in so many places and how feeble it is world wide. The mixed mode markets + regulation + some redistribution is winning out all over the world. Even the Chinese Commies have given up on Marx. The only place left for poor old Karl is in North Korea which is a wretched place to both live and visit.

ruveyn



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

20 Oct 2011, 7:52 pm

peebo wrote:
take the labour party in the uk for instance. under no circumstances whatsoever could their policies be considered socialist. the popular contemporary definition of socialism bears no relation to the actual concept of socialism, and this is the source of the confusion.

Well, yes, but British Labour wrote advocating socialism out of their charter decades ago. Socialism and communism are broad terms, but I wouldn't consider a capitalist society with some business regulations and social welfare socialist by any stretch. Tea Partiers obviously do. To me, socialism is in contrast with capitalism; one is not simply government service and the other privately held business that can mix and match. A capitalist society will still have a government, but that government is promoting capitalism (as in the case of the United States).Tea Partiers disagree on aspects of the relationship, but that doesn't make it not capitalism, and it doesn't make it socialism.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

20 Oct 2011, 8:15 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
peebo wrote:
take the labour party in the uk for instance. under no circumstances whatsoever could their policies be considered socialist. the popular contemporary definition of socialism bears no relation to the actual concept of socialism, and this is the source of the confusion.

Well, yes, but British Labour wrote advocating socialism out of their charter decades ago. Socialism and communism are broad terms, but I wouldn't consider a capitalist society with some business regulations and social welfare socialist by any stretch. Tea Partiers obviously do. To me, socialism is in contrast with capitalism; one is not simply government service and the other privately held business that can mix and match. A capitalist society will still have a government, but that government is promoting capitalism (as in the case of the United States).Tea Partiers disagree on aspects of the relationship, but that doesn't make it not capitalism, and it doesn't make it socialism.


what happens when the government actually focuses on social aspects?
in denmark the healthcare is public property as well as most of our public transport (the trains and busses were "privatized" in one region.)
there is extensive involvement in large buisnesses by government and the only legal provider of most gambling services is public property.(notable exceptions are slot machines and casinos, they do however pay an insane tax rate and need a special permit, only a handfull exist and they are not popular)

this post is mostly to see what people think are the "limits of socialism/divide", all input is apreciated.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


kevv729
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

20 Oct 2011, 9:44 pm

In the former U.S.S.R it was never really communist, it was dictatorial only.


_________________
Come on My children lets All get Along Okay.


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

21 Oct 2011, 1:05 am

ruveyn wrote:
In purely Darwinian terms, Capitalism wins the Struggle for Existence. Look how Socialism has failed in so many places and how feeble it is world wide. The mixed mode markets + regulation + some redistribution is winning out all over the world. Even the Chinese Commies have given up on Marx. The only place left for poor old Karl is in North Korea which is a wretched place to both live and visit.

ruveyn


hmmm you seemed to be suggesting that socialism hasn't existed earlier in the thread. this neing the case, it can hardly have failed, can it?


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

21 Oct 2011, 1:13 am

NeantHumain wrote:
Well, yes, but British Labour wrote advocating socialism out of their charter decades ago. Socialism and communism are broad terms, but I wouldn't consider a capitalist society with some business regulations and social welfare socialist by any stretch. Tea Partiers obviously do. To me, socialism is in contrast with capitalism; one is not simply government service and the other privately held business that can mix and match. A capitalist society will still have a government, but that government is promoting capitalism (as in the case of the United States).Tea Partiers disagree on aspects of the relationship, but that doesn't make it not capitalism, and it doesn't make it socialism.



a considered point, however i would argue that the british labour party never advocated real socialism anyway. it is worth noting that its origins lie in the fabian society.

what is largely considered socialism is in fact state capitalism, where the state owns the means of production. it can be argued, i suppose, that in this scenario the state operates as the beneficiary of the proletariat, but even this is incongruous with the spirit of socialism. the soviet union, the eastern block, north korea, cuba, venezuela, all operate, or operated, under a state capitalist model.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 85
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Oct 2011, 7:44 am

kevv729 wrote:
In the former U.S.S.R it was never really communist, it was dictatorial only.


It was communist for about five minutes. After which it was only Red Fascism.

ruveyn



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

21 Oct 2011, 3:39 pm

ruveyn wrote:
kevv729 wrote:
In the former U.S.S.R it was never really communist, it was dictatorial only.


It was communist for about five minutes. After which it was only Red Fascism.

ruveyn


well it wasn't really even communist, dictatorship of the proletariat, perhaps. communism could only practically exist in a communist world.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

21 Oct 2011, 3:41 pm

Oodain wrote:
what happens when the government actually focuses on social aspects?
in denmark the healthcare is public property as well as most of our public transport (the trains and busses were "privatized" in one region.)
there is extensive involvement in large buisnesses by government and the only legal provider of most gambling services is public property.(notable exceptions are slot machines and casinos, they do however pay an insane tax rate and need a special permit, only a handfull exist and they are not popular)

this post is mostly to see what people think are the "limits of socialism/divide", all input is apreciated.



in this case, quite simply, the government of the capitalist state likes to intervene in social aspects.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 85
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Oct 2011, 6:43 pm

peebo wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
In purely Darwinian terms, Capitalism wins the Struggle for Existence. Look how Socialism has failed in so many places and how feeble it is world wide. The mixed mode markets + regulation + some redistribution is winning out all over the world. Even the Chinese Commies have given up on Marx. The only place left for poor old Karl is in North Korea which is a wretched place to both live and visit.

ruveyn


hmmm you seemed to be suggesting that socialism hasn't existed earlier in the thread. this neing the case, it can hardly have failed, can it?


The mixed model is not socialism. Why? The means of production are privately owned. In a genuine socialist system the only private property is personal property. In a socialist system the means of production are not only collectively owned but collectively managed (in theory).

In a communist system, the underpants you wear are The People Underpants.

In a socialist system the underpants you wear are your underpants.

ruveyn



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

22 Oct 2011, 1:19 am

ruveyn wrote:
The mixed model is not socialism. Why? The means of production are privately owned. In a genuine socialist system the only private property is personal property. In a socialist system the means of production are not only collectively owned but collectively managed (in theory).

In a communist system, the underpants you wear are The People Underpants.

In a socialist system the underpants you wear are your underpants.

ruveyn



my point being, though, that socialism can hardly have failed if it has not actually existed.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

22 Oct 2011, 1:24 am

socialism, capitalism, anarchism have all failed



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

22 Oct 2011, 1:35 am

peebo wrote:
Oodain wrote:
free market socialism, read and be amazed, it actually works in a couple dozrn countries, some deemed better for buisness and with higher personal liberty than the us.

to say they are mutually exclusive would also mean that socialism would never be employed, in reality it will always be a mix.


free market socialism is a contradiction in terms. it can't exist. the use of the term socialism in the contemporary context is merely a euphemism for left-leaning capitalism. socialism requires the COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP of the MEANS OF PRODUCTION by the PROLETARIAT. as far as i am aware this has never been the case in any nation during recorded history, but most definitely not during the past few centuries.


Any how does a market economy composed entirely of workers cooperatives contradict socialism in this sense of the term?


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

22 Oct 2011, 2:15 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
peebo wrote:
Oodain wrote:
free market socialism, read and be amazed, it actually works in a couple dozrn countries, some deemed better for buisness and with higher personal liberty than the us.

to say they are mutually exclusive would also mean that socialism would never be employed, in reality it will always be a mix.


free market socialism is a contradiction in terms. it can't exist. the use of the term socialism in the contemporary context is merely a euphemism for left-leaning capitalism. socialism requires the COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP of the MEANS OF PRODUCTION by the PROLETARIAT. as far as i am aware this has never been the case in any nation during recorded history, but most definitely not during the past few centuries.


Any how does a market economy composed entirely of workers cooperatives contradict socialism in this sense of the term?


because a free market implies at least the possibility that the means of production can be privately owned.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

22 Oct 2011, 2:18 am

peebo wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
peebo wrote:
Oodain wrote:
free market socialism, read and be amazed, it actually works in a couple dozrn countries, some deemed better for buisness and with higher personal liberty than the us.

to say they are mutually exclusive would also mean that socialism would never be employed, in reality it will always be a mix.


free market socialism is a contradiction in terms. it can't exist. the use of the term socialism in the contemporary context is merely a euphemism for left-leaning capitalism. socialism requires the COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP of the MEANS OF PRODUCTION by the PROLETARIAT. as far as i am aware this has never been the case in any nation during recorded history, but most definitely not during the past few centuries.


Any how does a market economy composed entirely of workers cooperatives contradict socialism in this sense of the term?


because a free market implies at least the possibility that the means of production can be privately owned.


Any market that is privately owned is a bad thing.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 85
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Oct 2011, 3:15 am

Joker wrote:

Any market that is privately owned is a bad thing.


Do you want the production of food to be run by the government? If you do, be prepared to stand in line many hours for short rations.

ruveyn