Socialism Vs Capitalism

BrightSoul wrote:Your argument does nothing to remove the corruption from the process. You're simple replacing one corrupt bunch with another.

The real problem with any debate between isms is that when you actually look at the problems of both you find that the best system borrows from both. You need a government with the ability to counter destructive trends.

Today we've a problem that comes not from over regulation but the removal of most of the checks an balances in our system. It has resulted jn a system that favors Multinational Corporations and the extremely wealthy. Citizens United is allowing the complete and wholesale purchase of our government through hidden campaign funding through superPACs. Much of our current problems track back to the bi-partisan Free Trade Agreements which were sold to us as exporting our standard of living. We'd export jobs so that we exported our ideals. What we got was less jobs and importing of the rest of the world's plutocrats ideals.

Simply put, capitalism needs regulation or we cease to be a nation and become serfs working for the Lords (Corporate Managers), many of whom are foreign investors. Socialism as you seem to think it exists has the same dangers, too much is bad. Small Government with the power to limit the powers of the corporations and rebuild the middle class in this country.

So, can we please quit with the running to the fringes and work out something somewhere in the middle?

MAD-4A wrote:

PeterZ wrote:...Discussing the two -isms carries too many distractions from the core competing issues. What people can do with their property is what is important in this discussion, not what the system is called.

If it’s my property then it’s my property & I should be able to do what I want with it as long as it doesn’t damage your property. But that’s the thing, what constitutes “damage”? We can agree that if I have a pasture with a creek running through it, and allow a company to dump radioactive waste in my creek, then that would damage your property next door, downstream. But, does my company taking your companies customers from you constitute “damaging” your property? Or is it that your company doesn’t provide as good a service/product cause the damage?

This however is not the topic. The topic is how much control do we give the lying cheating corrupt politicians who (for some stupid reason) we allow to run the government?
I ask people what they think of politicians? Invariably & regardless of culture or ethnic background, they virtually always denounce politicians as lying, greedy cheats who can’t be trusted with a pen without running off with it in their pocket. Yet when asked about a favorite candidate they say “I like what he says”. What? Are you stupid? You just said politicians are lyres! So what would you care what s/he says? you just said it’s a LIE! And then these same morons what to turn everything over to their control through socialism? Dumb!

MAD-4A wrote:

namelessfly wrote:An amazing number of people on this forum are socialists.

Thats why I cut my last line (on FB): people who support socialism are idiots...oops

namelessfly wrote:The companies are private and workers as well as consumers have free choice, except that choice is limited by government regulation.The owners of a company are free to make a profit, except they will have their profits confiscated by taxes.

Actually that is Fascism. The difference between Communism and Fascism is that under Fascism (NAZI) the private citizens are allowed to retain ownership of companies but are controlled by the government in every aspect by “regulations”. Of course the companies that are owned but political rivals are taken over or "regulated" out of business and the owners arrested as “dissidents", just as the NAZIs did in the ‘30s (particularly to Jewish and Slavic owned businesses) – which was great for German owned businesses! In a full socialist country (where all competition has been squashed ) the government takes over the companies directly and “regulates” employment (forces people to work where they are told to – or else). Many “socialist” countries today are only partially socialist. This would change if the US turned socialist. Their governments would be less timid and take over their industry as well. Who would stop them? The government?

namelessfly wrote:I think that you are mistaking Socialism for Communism although the border is blurred.

Under Communism, the means of production is owned outright by the State and all decisions on production controlled by the State. Consumer choice is severely limited as a result.

Socialists countries such as Europe utilize high tax rates to redistribute the profits from productive enterprises. The revenue flow is also used by the State to purchase a significant interest, sometimes a controlling interest, in nominally private corporations. While consumer choices are limited by regulation and often for the benefit of particular corporations (the US banned incandescent light bulbs to create a market for the manufacturers of CFLs who could otherwise not sell their product. The CFC producers are unhappy about LEDs taking the market away from them, but they don't have a pretext to ban them).

The E wrote:Reading rants written by american conservatives about the evils of socialism or socialist policies never ceases to be supremely amusing.

Arol wrote:

The E wrote:Reading rants written by american conservatives about the evils of socialism or socialist policies never ceases to be supremely amusing.

Whereas the diatribes and rants about the dangers and iniquities of capitalism from die hard socialists are usually monotonous, boring and endlessly repetitive.
I prefere amusing!