Is Capitalism better than socialism?

eyeball · April 13, 2009

in a theoretical definition, yes. However the theoretical never takes into account the fact that a government program gets more and more inefficient and expensive year after year.
See: gun registry.

Also See:

the WOD

the WOT

the DFO

the military

the federal government

the provincial government

Virtually every level of government I've had to deal with has been a hurdle to overcome, an obstacle to a goal and a pain in the ass.

The older I get the more I'm leaning towards feelings of anarchy. My heart is saying its appropriate to have faith in the governent but my brain is saying I have very little to justify my feeling that way. The atheist in me is laughing at the way I'm clinging to my faith.

Pliny · April 13, 2009

I'm not sure if that poll is particularly useful; everyone has a different conception of what constitutes capitalism and what constitutes socialism. Is the welfare state capitalist or socialist? Is communism socialist? Are the respondants talking strictly about the economic systems or the political systems as well?

You are correct, I suppose. Our concepts of the terms vary depending upon experience and education and I never miss an opportunity to

Capitalism is entirely about economy and not about politics. It is not a political party. Political parties, since they are parasitical to the economy, like to feel they can manipulate it and attempt to do so. They start off protecting the economy and capitalism, and they have a vested interest in doing so, but the first injustice it creates in granting favor to one group of citizens over another group of citizens is the genesis for losing it's ability to apply justice and instead it starts to institute equality in an attempt to straighten itself out. Soon everyone is equal and you are living in a totalitarian state where competition, previously open, becomes frowned upon and equality has everyone living at the level of the lowest common denominator.

Socialism is not a static state except when it is totalitarian. Communism is an attempt to maintain a static state and it is totalitarian, established through revolutionary means. Communism is pretty much dead as a means to attain the totalitarian state. The evolutionary means of socialism is preferred today although socialists grow impatient and attempt to accelerate the process at every opportunity. Perhaps they don't see themselves as interfering do-gooders but saviors of the world and bringing equality to all, forgetting that equality can only be met at the lowest common denominator. Under a totally socialist state a lot of people have to die as it is the sole method to raise the bar of the lowest common denominator and the State will dictate who is dispensable.

As far as capitalism being a road to communism. Any organization that gains political powers of the use of force could lead to the totalitarian state. Communism is once again about the achievement of the totalitarian state through revolutionary means.

Fascism is simply another form of the totalitarian state. Elements of both Fascism and Communism may exist in socialism. It is almost impossible to reverse socialism because people, will not relinquish benefit from the State, a benefit invariably at the expense of others. The impulse to settle state imposed inequality is to attempt to bring about equality by granting an equalizing benefit - a process the economy will eventually not be able to bear.

We have to come to a common understanding of what these terms mean if we are going to ever understand what system of government we want. The meanings have to be accurate and demonstrate a concept. Social and political objectives must be separate.

The political spectrum would serve us better if it did not progress from centre toward greater socialism on both it's left and right sides ending in their extremes of revolutionary Communism on the left and dictatorial Fascism on the right, both totalitarian forms of government, and for democracies, holding pejorative connotations.

A better means to understanding politics would be to have no governmnt on one side of the spectrum and total government on the other side. The general populace does understand that size of government is proportional to the centralization and concentration of power. It must decide if government is a friendly and benign institution but I, undoubtedly, do not consider it so, since it's monopoly is based on the use of force and an ever concentrated and centralized power brings an increasing and more destructive struggle to hold those reins. All with good intention, you understand.

Pliny · April 13, 2009

Ivan Illich, Deschooling Society, Harrow Books, 1972:

Do you just like the way this stuff sounds, the style of Marxist prose, or do you actually take it to an understanding.

It is fluff and stuff to me. There may be some gem of wisdom buried in there but is it really worth the effort to sift through it all to find.

Smallc · April 13, 2009

They are the engineers of society after all - too important and intelligent to be constrained by the State - besides they designed that too.

Yes, because stereotypes are always correct.

tango · April 13, 2009

Dichotomize and divide! That's how we work against ourselves!

Still we allow ourselves to be sucked into the polarization of 'principles' - capitalism V socialism, when neither can EVER work in practice without the other. Some of us are the 'radical middle' who refuse to accept the divisions foisted upon us.

In reality, the vast majority of Canadians are people of the middle road and always will be, the balanced mix of capitalism and socialism that serves us well. When either becomes paramount and is allowed to get out of control, we feel the consequences as we are right now.

Unfettered corporatism is fascist totalitarianism, not free enterprise, and we skirted too close and now we are getting burned because we allowed ourselves to greedily consume what we should have preserved for coming generations.

Unfettered socialism is communist totalitarianism and consumes the young by stunting creativity and innovation.

When we stop allowing ourselves to be divided arbitrarily, and begin planning together in the radical middle, where dogma is ruled out of order, then we will be mature enough as a species to protect our own existence.

Until then, we are eating our young with these arbitrary and polarizing and dysfunctional debates at the extremes, where nobody truly 'lives' in reality.

madmax · April 13, 2009

Is it time to eliminate the mixed economy and go for pure capitalism?

No more pubic private partnerships. No more bailing out of our banking system. No more protections for our banking system.

What country has the purest form of Capitalism?

Phillipines? Columbia? Namibia? Nigeria? Argentina?

The United States? From wiki.....

In 2008, state intervention in global capital markets by the American and other governments was seen by many as signaling a crisis for free-market capitalism. Serious turmoil in the banking system and financial markets due in part to the subprime mortgage crisis reached a critical stage during September 2008, characterized by severely contracted liquidity in the global credit markets and going-concern threats to investment banks and other institutions

The moment the US stepped in to protect and save banks, it was socialism, better known as corporate welfare.

benny · April 13, 2009

Do you just like the way this stuff sounds, the style of Marxist prose, or do you actually take it to an understanding.
It is fluff and stuff to me. There may be some gem of wisdom buried in there but is it really worth the effort to sift through it all to find.

I posted these quotes only to break the prejudice that wants to keep connected the Left and (higher) education.

bush_cheney2004 · April 13, 2009

Is it time to eliminate the mixed economy and go for pure capitalism?
No more pubic private partnerships. No more bailing out of our banking system. No more protections for our banking system.

What country has the purest form of Capitalism?

Phillipines? Columbia? Namibia? Nigeria? Argentina?

The United States? From wiki.....

The poll sampled Americans....not the entire world.

Oleg Bach · April 13, 2009

Capitalism is a way of life for the rugged individual - those that are freemen and of independent mind and spirit that operate within the private sphere.

Socialism is for those that are weaker than us who need the safety of numbers to survive....Capital is the cap - the top of the heap - it's individual kingship...Socialism is the collective...and when socialist conspire in high numbers they will like red fire ants attack and attempt to destory the individual who is the wealth generator.

benny · April 13, 2009

Capitalism is a way of life for the rugged individual - those that are freemen and of independent mind and spirit that operate within the private sphere.
Socialism is for those that are weaker than us who need the safety of numbers to survive....Capital is the cap - the top of the heap - it's individual kingship...Socialism is the collective...and when socialist conspire in high numbers they will like red fire ants attack and attempt to destory the individual who is the wealth generator.

All to the contrary. We can distinguish in between capitalists and socialists by looking at the two different attitudes the personages in the movie Alien have toward the highly aggressive extraterrestrial parasite which stalks and kills the crew of a spaceship. Capitalists want to convince the crew to bring this creature on Earth because it has a high potential to allow them to suck life out of every life forms and the crew (the social formation) wants to kill it.

Oleg Bach · April 13, 2009

All to the contrary. We can distinguish in between capitalists and socialists by looking at the two different attitudes the personages in the movie Alien have toward the highly aggressive extraterrestrial parasite which stalks and kills the crew of a spaceship. Capitalists want to convince the crew to bring this creature on Earth because it has a high potential to allow them to suck life out of every life forms and the crew (the social formation) wants to kill it.

I do believe you should be able to keep what you yourself create. BUT because of my old school Christain orthodox values that leaked down from my grand father - to my father who stated "There are others" In other words others must survive - that there be no losers. I see your point...and what bothers me are parasites..who wage war for profit because they think of no one but themselves. It looks like the early Christian movement was corporate socialism - but it was one of choice - to give and contribute - but with capitalism we are FORCED - to contribute - there is no free will in capitalism or socialism.

benny · April 14, 2009

I do believe you should be able to keep what you yourself create. BUT because of my old school Christain orthodox values that leaked down from my grand father - to my father who stated "There are others" In other words others must survive - that there be no losers. I see your point...and what bothers me are parasites..who wage war for profit because they think of no one but themselves. It looks like the early Christian movement was corporate socialism - but it was one of choice - to give and contribute - but with capitalism we are FORCED - to contribute - there is no free will in capitalism or socialism.

The Original Sin is what we create ourselves. That is why the role of fathers and grandfathers is to castrate their sons. Christianity goes much farther by praying for everyone to be struck by God.

lictor616 · April 15, 2009

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/09/Pol...68861239324139/

National Socialism (or third way capitalism) in Germany was a raving success, zero unemployment, stupendous scientific and mathematical literacy, outstanding social cohesion and sense of community (well except perhaps with Jews). The population was healthy beyond modern day canada- cancers, obesity, STD's were nearly at zero... what else? oh yes taxes were a great deal lower then current rates (its true Nazi Germany did not have millions of regular welfare dependents, the mentally and physically infirm (or "Erbkrank") ... there was also a minimum of inter-class hostility.

National Socialism (the type adopted by the nazis) produced only small government checks on industry while greatly improving technology and supplying Germany with a roaring economy...

But of course in our "free" country no one can say what I have just outlined under pains of "hate speech" prosecution. IN our intellectually undemanding and crumbling culture: one merely has to say "that's what Hitler did" to make fastidious minds boil with the insane and sullen hatred of reason.

Edited April 15, 2009 by lictor616

Oleg Bach · April 15, 2009

National Socialism (or third way capitalism) in Germany was a raving success, zero unemployment, stupendous scientific and mathematical literacy, outstanding social cohesion and sense of community (well except perhaps with Jews). The population was health beyond modern day canada- cancers, obesity, STD's were nearly at zero... what else? oh yes taxes were a great deal lower then current rates (its true Nazi Germany did not have millions of regular welfare dependents, the mentally and physically infirm (or "Erbkrank") ... there was also a minimum of inter-class hostility.
National Socialism (the type adopted by the nazis) produced only small government checks on industry while greatly improving technology and having an economy...

But of course in our "free" country no one can say what I have just outlined under pains of "hate speech" prosecution. IN our intellectually undemanding and crumbling culture: one merely has to say "that's what Hitler did" to make fastidious minds boil with the insane and sullen hatred of reason.

Who gives a damn about zero unemployment? Where is it carved in stone that a human being must work and waste away till death - all for the sake of maintaining some stupid unneccesary way of life..a regimented grey utilitarianism. Social cohesion might be fine if you are a socialable coakroach..or maggot...I don't give a damn about some soviet style sing along in the town square - where we chant "we are one" - who needs this crap?

You may be submerged in "our intellectually undemanding and crumbling culture" - maybe you are running with the wrong crowd? As for your mention of welfare - in reality what you describe is a whole nation on social assistance doing work that really is one huge job creation program leading no where - WHY DON'T YOU JUST FORGET ABOUT ENSLAVEMENT OF PEOPLE- AND MIND YOUR OWN BUISNESS. :lol:

M.Dancer · April 15, 2009

National Socialism (or third way capitalism) in Germany was a raving success,

In your short time here you have posted quite a lot of nonsense, and this post is no execption.The NAZI banking system was a total mess, they cooked the books and if it wasn't for the war, Hitler, if syphilis hadn't killed him, would have had his economic ministry shot.

lictor616 · April 15, 2009

Who gives a damn about zero unemployment? Where is it carved in stone that a human being must work and waste away till death - all for the sake of maintaining some stupid unneccesary way of life..a regimented grey utilitarianism. Social cohesion might be fine if you are a socialable coakroach..or maggot...I don't give a damn about some soviet style sing along in the town square - where we chant "we are one" - who needs this crap?
You may be submerged in "our intellectually undemanding and crumbling culture" - maybe you are running with the wrong crowd? As for your mention of welfare - in reality what you describe is a whole nation on social assistance doing work that really is one huge job creation program leading no where - WHY DON'T YOU JUST FORGET ABOUT ENSLAVEMENT OF PEOPLE- AND MIND YOUR OWN BUISNESS.

I'm sorry - but you clearly haven't read the almanacs and life quality measurement indexes of pre-war germany... They had 8 to 9 hour shifts, made very decent salaries and ate very well. They had health benefits and all manner of workers rights.

Stupid unnecessary way of life? Is having a country of progress (at least technologically) of comfort and of rootedness or relatedness - an ironclad sense of REAL community with a MEANINGFUL concept of nation "stupid" and "unnecessary" ?

Enslavement of people? You seem to be referring to Communists- the arch enemies of National Socialists.

Oleg Bach · April 15, 2009

I'm sorry - but you clearly haven't read the almanacs and life quality measurement indexes of pre-war germany... They had 8 to 9 hour shifts, made very decent salaries and ate very well. They had health benefits and all manner of workers rights.
Stupid unnecessary way of life? Is having a country of progress (at least technologically) of comfort and of rootedness or relatedness - an ironclad sense of REAL community with a MEANINGFUL concept of nation "stupid" and "unnecessary" ?

Enslavement of people? You seem to be referring to Communists- the arch enemies of National Socialists.

Meaningful concept of nation...I like that - translated would mean having regard for the national family - and having family come first - starting at home and spreading out into the community...no not the commie commune but the street where family men and woman are respected - where the lowest of the low is still a brother to be respected - where the highest of the high has courtesy and a sense of social familiar responsiveness - I agree...BUT there is an agenda where the tribal system or "nationalism" is hated along with the traditional male and female and nuclear family - we are considered a disease.

benny · April 15, 2009

In your short time here you have posted quite a lot of nonsense, and this post is no execption.The NAZI banking system was a total mess, they cooked the books and if it wasn't for the war, Hitler, if syphilis hadn't killed him, would have had his economic ministry shot.

Here a book that shows how greedy capitalist British may have foster Nazism:

Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost the Empire and the West Lost the World

by Patrick J. Buchanan.

Oleg Bach · April 15, 2009

Here a book that shows how greedy capitalist British may have foster Nazism:
Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost the Empire and the West Lost the World

by Patrick J. Buchanan.

The EU was Germany's belated dream come true. Buckingham Palace was not bombed - Churchill and Stalin along with Rosevelt - were photographed having a wonderful time and few drinks I am sure - war is buisness and high arch feuding. AND the common person dies and suffers because - some jerks kill for money - power and adventure.

benny · April 15, 2009

The EU was Germany's belated dream come true. Buckingham Palace was not bombed - Churchill and Stalin along with Rosevelt - were photographed having a wonderful time and few drinks I am sure - war is buisness and high arch feuding. AND the common person dies and suffers because - some jerks kill for money - power and adventure.

When humiliation gives wings to a common person like Hitler, it becomes futile to ask which economic system (capitalism, communism, socialism, etc.) is better.

lictor616 · April 15, 2009

Meaningful concept of nation...I like that - translated would mean having regard for the national family - and having family come first - starting at home and spreading out into the community...no not the commie commune but the street where family men and woman are respected - where the lowest of the low is still a brother to be respected - where the highest of the high has courtesy and a sense of social familiar responsiveness - I agree...BUT there is an agenda where the tribal system or "nationalism" is hated along with the traditional male and female and nuclear family - we are considered a disease.

hear hear!

Exactly, a proper nation is YOUR extended family. And while you may not consider everyone as OBJECTIVELY "equal" you see them as subjective "brothers"- all of them are people you could imagine to be in your family.

And I too like the whole "family is the bulwark of nation" theory. Its a much healthier approach then our "everyone should be a rootless cosmopolitan egalitarian social democrat" approach at what constitutes a strong nation.

to me this is all common sense.

lictor616 · April 15, 2009

When humiliation gives wings to a common person like Hitler, it becomes futile to ask which economic system (capitalism, communism, socialism, etc.) is better.

Hitler was not given anything- he started from scratch and captured a nation- not by coincidence but by his own actions.

benny · April 15, 2009

Hitler was not given anything- he started from scratch and captured a nation- not by coincidence but by his own actions.

Acting out is a very awful type of action.

Oleg Bach · April 15, 2009

Hitler was not given anything- he started from scratch and captured a nation- not by coincidence but by his own actions.

That's a lot of crap - his first desk was given to him by a nice Jewish lady - who was the wife of a rich funder - of course he was funded...just as Mao was funded - Capitalist fund socialism - and communism - it's good buisness and ensures cheap labour in the future..get with it - Hitler was a front man just like Bush - Started from scratch ??? :lol: The man was a superstitious occultist idiot!

M.Dancer · April 15, 2009

When humiliation gives wings to a common person like Hitler, it becomes futile to ask which economic system (capitalism, communism, socialism, etc.) is better.

You got to wonder though...what if Austria had public post secondary art college...and some nameless drone of a publicly paid art prof said to Herr Schiklegruber.."Hey Kid, your pedestrian water colours have some merit, stick to it and one day you could make a few marks working for a real estate advertising firm..."

No doubt instead of becoming a microencephalic megalomaniacal dictator he would have settled down with a nice Jewish girl and raised a family of loving, if not particularly talented children...