First definition, then debate. A source so we all may speak the same 'language'

[psikeyhackr]

Capitalism
an economic system in which the means of production, such as land and factories, are privately owned and operated for profit. Usually ownership is concentrated in the hands of a small number of people. Capitalism, which developed during the Industrial Revolution, is associated with free enterprise, although in practice even capitalist societies have government regulations for business, to prevent monopolies and to cushion domestic industries from foreign competition. Opponents of capitalism say that the economy should be organized to serve the public good, not private profit. Supporters say capitalism creates wealth, which creates jobs, which create prosperity for everyone

socialism
a political system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are mostly owned by the state, and used, at least in theory, on behalf of the people. The idea behind socialism is that the capitalist system is intrinsically unfair, because it concentrates wealth in a few hands and does nothing to safeguard the overall welfare of the majority. Under socialism, the state redistributes the wealth of society in a more equitable way, with the ideal of social justice replacing the profit motive. Socialism as a system is anathema to most Americans, although many social welfare programs like Medicare and Medicaid (once derided by their opponents as "socialized medicine") and Social Security are socialistic in effect, since they are controlled by the government and effect a measure of income redistribution that could not happen if market forces were the sole factor in the economic life of society.

But in reality the words and definitions are not the current reality and other factors may have changed society already.

Those definitions could be used before 1900 or since 1950 but how many things changed in between? In 1995 there were 200,000,000 automobiles in the United States. In 1900 there were only 8,000. So what did the depreciation of automobiles matter before 1900? But what have all of the capitalist leaning economists said about it since 1995?

I have a Linux book from 2001 that talks about the planned obsolescence of computer software. There weren't any electronic computers before 1946.

So how much of what gets produced and how long it lasts may be more important than who owns the means of production but none of the economists are talking about the depreciation of all of the junk.

Definitions may not matter to the debate if the debaters don't understand current reality. They may just be arguing about what should have been done 75 years ago and not have a clue what should be done today.

psik

 

[Ragnar]

Twenty-first-century America is divided into two major parties - Democrat and Republican, and they have very little in common.

Well that's about as far as one need go to figure out thevoter.org is full of crap.

Something close to standard Lincoln/Douglas format is the best one can hope for forum-wise on the "internets" and your lucky to get that much structure. (or even something close to it)

Heck, your lucky to define an issue in the OP and have a reasonable debate on the merits of the definition, let alone resolving anything at all.

Plus it's fun to poke folks with sticks from great distances.

They have much in common, depending on what you are comparing.

Ring a ding ding.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is normative practice for folks who are going to do evil to redefine evil in positive terms.

English is an old language, and we all speak it, well or ill. Base language is not that hard.

But you play games with the definitions, you even start to discuss how things should be defined other than how we are use to them, and I have intense doubts about where you are going with it.

We leave things alone like this, if you want to redefine words, you are starting up an intellectual version of find the lady in a deck of three cards.

Wry Catcher's definitions are quite acceptable and agree with historical observation. Redefinition has primarily been the providence of the far reactionary right on this thread, for instance. Political Chic comes to mind quite readily for trying to redefine political, social, and economic terms. Not acceptable. Baruch has every reason to fear if reasonable-person definitions are employed.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Ah, define the terms, you define the debate.

You do that, language becomes just sound, the environment becomes just fury.

Much of what goes for language on this message board is noise, if everyone understands terms and operates with the same definition communication is possible.
When fools ( a shout out to crusaderfrank) use words like liberal marxist commie, or some such dribble, the only reasonable response is to ignore him.

Reading from the link below is like taking course in political science. In my humble and enlightened opinion only the willfully ignorant or dishonest object to making communication and debate sensible.

THE VOTER - Educating voters since 1999;

For those who like learning, open up the link above and enjoy. Save it in favorites and when someone posts dribble challenge them. Much more fun, I think, then letting them get a way with dribble or calling them a name (even if calling them a name is appropriate).

 

[psikeyhackr]

This sounds like a job for General Semantics.

The Project Gutenberg EBook of Manhood of Humanity. by Alfred Korzybski

psik