Is Capitalism better than socialism?

[M.Dancer]

If you want to compare pure economic systems, you will have to stop comparing countries.

no i don't think so....

[benny]

no i don't think so....

Also, there are around 195 countries in the world as of today.

[M.Dancer]

Also, there are around 195 countries in the world as of today.

How many of them are G20?

[benny]

How many of them are G20?

46

[cybercoma]

Hitler may have called his party the National Socialists, but make no mistake about it, they were fascists. A pig wearing lipstick is still a pig.

Edited April 16, 2009 by cybercoma

[M.Dancer]

Hitler may have called his party the National Socialists, but make no mistake about it, they were fascists. A pig wearing lipstick is still a pig.

They were still socialists though..the differences are the difference between the concepts of international socialism and national socialism...in either case the rights of the individual are secondary to the needs of the corporation (state, struggle, whatever....)

[benny]

Hitler may have called his party the National Socialists, but make no mistake about it, they were fascists. A pig wearing lipstick is still a pig.

Fascism is an extreme form of socialism. Fascism conceives society as an organism with a head and a lot of other organs and where all these other organs strangely enjoy sacrificing their freedoms to the totalitarian authority of this head.

[Moonlight Graham]

Either system, on its own, is not great. A mix is always best...the problem is determining the best mix.

i concur.

[Moonlight Graham]

Socialism gets a bad rap. It would be interesting to see implemented a civil, democratic country that used a mostly socialist economy. Because of Marx and Communism, we have seen virtually every socialist gov't that i know of having a dictatorship or some kind of totalitarian regime.

[M.Dancer]

Socialism gets a bad rap. It would be interesting to see implemented a civil, democratic country that used a mostly socialist economy. Because of Marx and Communism, we have seen virtually every socialist gov't that i know of having a dictatorship or some kind of totalitarian regime.

I think socialism is impossible without a loss of freedom. No one willingly gives up their wealth ..it is taken away by force. On the other hand social programmes that benefit the consumer and capitalist like education and healthcare get votes....but would confiscation of industry, banks and property get votes?

[benny]

Considering the ease with which capitalism penetrates and disturbs every cultures worldwide, we have to say that this economic system is somehow a meaningless truth.

http://books.google.com/books?id=je702bo2P...=4#PRA1-PA81,M1

[cybercoma]

They were still socialists though..the differences are the difference between the concepts of international socialism and national socialism...in either case the rights of the individual are secondary to the needs of the corporation (state, struggle, whatever....)

Fascism is totalitarian. It uses rigorous censorship, conducts pervasive propaganda campaigns and violates human rights (arrests without trials, concentration camps, etc). Fascism is necessarily nationalistic and violent. War is used to legitimize the totalitarian regime: if you're not with us, you're against us. Fascism is about living united through the state, with the leader as its embodiment. Fascism would see socialism as divisive with its class definitions.

Socialism is not totalitarian. Democratically elected socialist governments have existed throughout the world. Censorship, propaganda and human rights abuses are not essential to Socialism. Since Socialism is not totalitarian, war is not necessary to legitimize those in power. The function of Socialism is not to for people to identify with the state, but rather to identify with society.

Fascism and Socialism are entirely different schools of thought. Hitler presented his party as Socialist to make it more appealing to a country struggling under debt from WWI. First they were called the "Workers Party", then they switched to "National Socialist", but neither label describe their true ideologies.

I wish I could find it, but I remember seeing a picture of an apartment complex in Germany circa 1934. In the windows were a number of Nazi flags as well as Communist flags. That should give the idea that they are indeed very different things.

Edited April 16, 2009 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

I think socialism is impossible without a loss of freedom. No one willingly gives up their wealth ..it is taken away by force. On the other hand social programmes that benefit the consumer and capitalist like education and healthcare get votes....but would confiscation of industry, banks and property get votes?

Maybe not, but banks is an interesting question. Everyone with money uses banks (unless you stash your dough in a mattress). We have nationalized mail service, television and radio stations. The provinces take care of roads, hospitals and schools. Why shouldn't banks, which benefit us all, be owned and operated by the state?

[lictor616]

Fascism is totalitarian. It uses rigorous censorship, conducts pervasive propaganda campaigns and violates human rights (arrests without trials, concentration camps, etc). Fascism is necessarily nationalistic and violent. War is used to legitimize the totalitarian regime: if you're not with us, you're against us. Fascism is about living united through the state, with the leader as its embodiment. Fascism would see socialism as divisive with its class definitions.

Socialism is not totalitarian. Democratically elected socialist governments have existed throughout the world. Censorship, propaganda and human rights abuses are not essential to Socialism. Since Socialism is not totalitarian, war is not necessary to legitimize those in power. The function of Socialism is not to for people to identify with the state, but rather to identify with society.

Fascism and Socialism are entirely different schools of thought. Hitler presented his party as Socialist to make it more appealing to a country struggling under debt from WWI. First they were called the "Workers Party", then they switched to "National Socialist", but neither label describe their true ideologies.

I wish I could find it, but I remember seeing a picture of an apartment complex in Germany circa 1934. In the windows were a number of Nazi flags as well as Communist flags. That should give the idea that they are indeed very different things.

not necessarily- Italy had far better freedom of expression then any socialist state of the time, and even nazi Germany, the huge bonfires of books we see during kristalnacht were symbolic. It wasn't illegal to own Das Kapital or American magazines or any other such items.

Of course communist agitators were put under harsh scrutiny as they had tried to subvert and topple the government too many times in the past.

Perhaps you couldn't point out to a single nation that DIDN'T employ "pervasive" propaganda campaigns... The british were no better, and even worst were the americans (read up on the Creel Commission's disgusting work during ww1 and Theodore Kaufman's "germany must perish" for reference)

but the germans were certainly the only ones that were HONEST about the use of propaganda as evidenced by this now well known quote from Reichsmarschall Göring:

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany.

That is understood.

But it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along to fight a war, ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.

All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

-- Hermann Göring

and socialism implies the centralization and co-ordination of the productive powers; it seeks to regiment and organize a working class to that effect. Which necessarily implies a much tighter restriction on the mind of the populace (you can't have too many independent thinkers in a socialist country)

perhaps the only exception would be anarcho-socialist, but that certainly won't occur in this next century.

Edited April 16, 2009 by lictor616

[tango]

\

It's a silly question...just ask the average cuban where they would rather live...Miami or Havana...or better yet...go back in time and ask the average east german....Pole....Hungarian, estonian...etc etc

The question was answered years ago.

Ah! But is that because of capitalism or socialist programs?

[tango]

I think socialism is impossible without a loss of freedom. No one willingly gives up their wealth ..it is taken away by force. On the other hand social programmes that benefit the consumer and capitalist like education and healthcare get votes....but would confiscation of industry, banks and property get votes?

I favour a mix of both, with a guaranteed annual income of at least $20,000 for every Canadian.

This represents only a loss of "freedom" (which you seem to equate with money and assets) for a very few Canadians, but greater freedom for many many other Canadians.

2% of Canadians have 40% of the income (These are the ones who will take the hit ... and it will be negligible for each of them - $175,000 - they'll still have at least a million a year left.)

48% of the people own 58% of the income

50% of the people own 2% of the income (and pretty much all of them live in poverty)

"Confiscation" as you call it for inflammatory purposes, is nothing more than sharing the resources and the wealth of the land more appropriately than is the case now. The income gap is too big.

Too many are suffering so too few can enjoy unnecessary wealth from the destruction of our natural resources (soil, air, entire watersheds) that belong to us all collectively.

And then of course, there is the issue of the natural destruction they leave behind, after they declare bankruptcy and morph into a 'new' company - so we are all collectively on the hook to pay for their cleanup.

Keep in mind ... I am talking only about people making $1m or more.

And of course, the "confiscation" would not be immediate, but gradual through proper taxation and closing loopholes.

Yes, I believe in this climate nationalization of banks (and their atrocious profits) would get votes.

[benny]

I think socialism is impossible without a loss of freedom. No one willingly gives up their wealth ..it is taken away by force. On the other hand social programmes that benefit the consumer and capitalist like education and healthcare get votes....but would confiscation of industry, banks and property get votes?

People cannot socialize together if they conceive freedom in terms of walls or enclosures in between them.

[M.Dancer]

I favour a mix of both, with a guaranteed annual income of at least $20,000 for every Canadian.

I favour a climate where the able bodied can work and those unable to are taken care of and those to lazy to work starve.

This represents only a loss of "freedom" (which you seem to equate with money and assets) for a very few Canadians, but greater freedom for many many other Canadians.

Whether it is a loss to some or all it is still oppression.

2% of Canadians have 40% of the income (These are the ones who will take the hit ... and it will be negligible for each of them - $175,000 - they'll still have at least a million a year left.)

48% of the people own 58% of the income

50% of the people own 2% of the income (and pretty much all of them live in poverty)

All that is irrelevant

"Confiscation" as you call it for inflammatory purposes, is nothing more than sharing the resources and the wealth of the land more appropriately than is the case now. The income gap is too big.

If you take my farm, if you take my business without my consent it is theft.

Too many are suffering so too few can enjoy unnecessary wealth from the destruction of our natural resources (soil, air, entire watersheds) that belong to us all collectively.

Noi such thing as unnecessary wealth.....

And then of course, there is the issue of the natural destruction they leave behind, after they declare bankruptcy and morph into a 'new' company - so we are all collectively on the hook to pay for their cleanup.

I have no idea qwhat you are on about...

Keep in mind ... I am talking only about people making $1m or more.

I understand...Hitler only talked about Jews...as long as they are a minority, steal from them..

And of course, the "confiscation" would not be immediate, but gradual through proper taxation and closing loopholes.

Only if there is a dictatorship....no one votes for theft.

Yes, I believe in this climate nationalization of banks (and their atrocious profits) would get votes.

I believe the stock holders, who by and large are ordinary Canadians would not vote for the destruction of their wealth.

[benny]

I favour a climate where the able bodied can work and those unable to are taken care of and those to lazy to work starve.

Communist motto was: he who does not work, neither shall he eat.

Capitalist motto is more like: own something (and retire at 55).

[M.Dancer]

Communist motto was: he who does not work, neither shall he eat.

Capitalist motto is more like: own something (and retire at 55).

Actually the Communist motto is:

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." and was coined by Marx

The motto, "he who does not work, neither shall he eat" is from the Virginia settlement led by Capt John Smith. It is a capitalist motto

The above motto was co-opted by Lenin and refers to the bourgois who they believed produced nothing and lived off the sweat of workers. It took them 90 years to figure out that was wrong.

[Pliny]

I favour a mix of both, with a guaranteed annual income of at least $20,000 for every Canadian.

This represents only a loss of "freedom"......

Doesn't sound like much of a mix. Sounds like you favour one group over another in society. Do you find it easy to see injustice? It is all around you, isn't it? This is a mixed system. Do those injustices pertain entirely to economic inequality? Is the redistribution and guarantee of money to the have-nots the entirety of your solution to injustice?

I think it is plain to see that socialist governments and social democracies, a nice mix like ours, in league with yourself, are of the opinion that money and it's "proper" distribution is the entire solution to injustice and will resolve all social ills. Will it then be easier to see actual criminality and injustice or are those things now for the history books? What will happen to social welfare programs? Will they disappear putting countless people out of work or will there always be people that require their services? If the answer is the latter then I am afraid the conclusion must be made that the redistribution of wealth is not really resolving anything. We just have people on the streets with money and since it is always available, like air with no monetary value, it becomes like air - of no monetary value.

A guarantee of entitlement to money only results in it's devaluation. If you think of money as a sort of token (isn't that an odd thought) it is easy to see that if everyone has lots of tokens no one needs or wants to accept tokens. There is no demand for tokens and there is then no means of measuring their value. If there are not many tokens they have some value if they are to be used as currency by fiat but people will not be inclined to save them because at any time someone might make a whole bunch of them or even attempt to redistribute them.

[lictor616]

So what you are saying is these cats convinced herr schiklegruber to declare war on the USA and to attack the Soviets bringing them into the war on the side of the allies?

Wow....talk about your historical revisionists...

Well its not revisionism. Its documented fact. HG Farbe, chase bank, Rothschild, Du Pont, Standard Oil etc made tens of BILLIONS in the war.

here's an ebook (out of many) that documents some of the most well known cases of the US and Britain Financing BOTH the Soviet Union AND Nazi Germany simultaneously. Read it and shudder.

Even GM! There are numerous accounts that some German motor lowries had GM PARTS in them when inspected by american troops (some even had the MADE IN USA tag on them).

This isn't revisionism but plain well verified historical fact. The US and BRITAIN bankrolled the war. (i found these copies of Anthony Sutton's "WAll street and the Bolshevik revolution" as well as "Wall Street and the rise of Hitler" on a reformed theology website ... ignore the website)

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bo...vik_revolution/

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/

[M.Dancer]

Well its not revisionism. Its documented fact. HG Farbe, chase bank, Rothschild, Du Pont, Standard Oil etc made tens of BILLIONS in the war.

And very irrelevant.

Germany declared war on the Poland. Germany declared war on the US. Germany Declared war on Russia. The banks were not part of Hitler's decision to commit national suicide

[benny]

Actually the Communist motto is:

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." and was coined by Marx

The motto, "he who does not work, neither shall he eat" is from the Virginia settlement led by Capt John Smith. It is a capitalist motto

The above motto was co-opted by Lenin and refers to the bourgois who they believed produced nothing and lived off the sweat of workers. It took them 90 years to figure out that was wrong.

Actually Paul is the common source and Jesus is the only source of Paul:

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. (Paul, 2 Thessalonians 3:10)

Jesus said. "Look at the birds of the air. They neither sew nor reap nor gather into barns but your heavenly Father takes care of them. Are you not more valuable than them?" (Matthew 6:25)

[lictor616]

And very irrelevant.

Germany declared war on the Poland. Germany declared war on the US. Germany Declared war on Russia. The banks were not part of Hitler's decision to commit national suicide

No quite, BRITAIN declared war on GERMANY before first interfering in the foreign affairs of Germany for so many years. Germany had reluctantly declared war on America (because the whole point of letting pearl harbor happen was so taht the US would have justification for entering the war with germany). A salient quote was when Hitler told the Emperor and Tojo- "god help us, you have awoken the sleeping giant"

America's declaration of war with Japan forced Germany to respond in kind to America.

It's obvious that Germany would have MUCH MUCH preferred NEVER to have america as an enemy.

But Germany declared war on America nearly two YEARS after the outbreak of the war, after the US had (in deliberate violation of international law and indeed all statutes of war between civilized nations) was supplying Great Britain and Russia with enormous amounts of manufactured goods and sending unmarked vessels in the Baltic sea (so that a german U-boat might FINALLY sink an American ship and thus give America a valid excuse to go to war with Germany).

The Molotov-Ribbentrop joke of an alliance was always understood by BOTH parties to be eventually broken. It was a pact made to consolidate both powers.

The point of course is that the banks (Thyssen - the prime funder of Hitler- who was funded by Du Pont and the Chase Bank) were of course prime advisers and movers.

To say that banking interests played no significant role in the second world war is simply nonsense on stilts.