Quick Quiz: Socialism & Capitalism. Multiple Choice AND Essay

[Mac1958]

Is anyone a else little sick of the way the term "socialism" is thrown around, all willy-nilly 'n stuff?

Wouldn't it be smart for us to AT LEAST agree on what the term means?

Please expound.

 

[miketx]

We know what it means.

 

[Mac1958]

The size, scope and cost of government exist on a continuum. The key is in finding and maintaining a proper equilibrium between the two. You cannot be "capitalism" one day and "socialism" the next.

 

[Mac1958]

We know what it means.

Please expound.

 

[Timmy]

Its a term conservatives apply to whatever they don’t like . “Brussels sprouts are socialism!”

 

[miketx]

We know what it means.

Please expound.

no.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The second answer option is at least an accurate statement, but its being so has nothing to do with the relationship between capitalism and socialism for even in a wholly capitalist or wholly socialist system/economy, the second answer option would nonetheless be true.

 

[Tehon]

It is either or. The means of production are owned socially or they are owned privately. That doesn't exactly mean the two can't coexist on some level.

Socialism isn't government redistribution.

 

[Mac1958]

Someone voted for "there is no in between".

I'd sure love to see an explanation of that.

 

[Pete7469]

Someone voted for "there is no in between".

I'd sure love to see an explanation of that.

You either have an economy where the free market functions without interference and theft from collectivists or you don't.

Pretty simple.

 

[SeaGal]

Is anyone a else little sick of the way the term "socialism" is thrown around, all willy-nilly 'n stuff?

Wouldn't it be smart for us to AT LEAST agree on what the term means?

Please expound.

Okay.

Capitalism is an economic system which thrives on market competition. Capitalism generates the highest standard of living for the greatest amount of people. Socialism is both an economic and a governing system...and can create great wealth for a ruling class while repressing opportunity for many others. In between, but just as potentially repressive, is a system where the means of production is still privately owned, but so heavily regulated by the governing system as to render business virtually government owned.

Paying taxes and contributing to social programs does not turn a capitalist economy into a socialist form of government. A robust capitalist economy can afford to assist it's needy and elderly, as well as afford to provide clean air and water. No economy can afford more takers than contributors long term however.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Someone voted for "there is no in between".

I'd sure love to see an explanation of that.

You either have an economy where the free market functions without interference and theft from collectivists or you don't.

Pretty simple.

Is there a country in the world today where the free market functions without interference?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Is anyone a else little sick of the way the term "socialism" is thrown around, all willy-nilly 'n stuff?

Wouldn't it be smart for us to AT LEAST agree on what the term means?

Please expound.

Okay.

Capitalism is an economic system which thrives on market competition. Capitalism generates the highest standard of living for the greatest amount of people. Socialism is both an economic and a governing system...and can create great wealth for a ruling class while repressing opportunity for many others. In between, but just as potentially repressive, is a system where the means of production is still privately owned, but so heavily regulated by the governing system as to render business virtually government owned.

Paying taxes and contributing to social programs does not turn a capitalist economy into a socialist form of government. A robust capitalist economy can afford to assist it's needy and elderly, as well as afford to provide clean air and water. No economy can afford more takers than contributors long term however.

You've said a lot. Which nation, to your knowledge, comes closest to getting the mix just right?

 

[Mac1958]

Is anyone a else little sick of the way the term "socialism" is thrown around, all willy-nilly 'n stuff?

Wouldn't it be smart for us to AT LEAST agree on what the term means?

Please expound.

Okay.

Capitalism is an economic system which thrives on market competition. Capitalism generates the highest standard of living for the greatest amount of people. Socialism is both an economic and a governing system...and can create great wealth for a ruling class while repressing opportunity for many others. In between, but just as potentially repressive, is a system where the means of production is still privately owned, but so heavily regulated by the governing system as to render business virtually government owned.

Paying taxes and contributing to social programs does not turn a capitalist economy into a socialist form of government. A robust capitalist economy can afford to assist it's needy and elderly, as well as afford to provide clean air and water. No economy can afford more takers than contributors long term however.

Thanks.

Here's one of the points I'm trying to get to: America is (overall) a capitalist system, but there are clearly elements of it that could easily be identified as "socialist": Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare. Tax dollars that are used for things other than the national defense.

So it seems screamingly obvious to me that (a) socialistic elements will always exist here, and that (2) the discussion is better off being about finding the right equilibrium.

So just screaming SOCIALISM is no more productive than just screaming RACISM. The definitions of the words ultimately become warped and lose all specific meaning.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Someone voted for "there is no in between".

I'd sure love to see an explanation of that.

You either have an economy where the free market functions without interference and theft from collectivists or you don't.

Pretty simple.

Is there a country in the world today where the free market functions without interference?

That's the direction I'm going here, thanks.
.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Is anyone a else little sick of the way the term "socialism" is thrown around, all willy-nilly 'n stuff?

Wouldn't it be smart for us to AT LEAST agree on what the term means?

Please expound.

Okay.

Capitalism is an economic system which thrives on market competition. Capitalism generates the highest standard of living for the greatest amount of people. Socialism is both an economic and a governing system...and can create great wealth for a ruling class while repressing opportunity for many others. In between, but just as potentially repressive, is a system where the means of production is still privately owned, but so heavily regulated by the governing system as to render business virtually government owned.

Paying taxes and contributing to social programs does not turn a capitalist economy into a socialist form of government. A robust capitalist economy can afford to assist it's needy and elderly, as well as afford to provide clean air and water. No economy can afford more takers than contributors long term however.

Thanks.

Here's one of the points I'm trying to get to: America is (overall) a capitalist system, but there are clearly elements of it that could easily be identified as "socialist": Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare. Tax dollars that are used for things other than the national defense.

So it seems screamingly obvious to me that (a) socialistic elements will always exist here, and that (2) the discussion is better off being about finding the right equilibrium.

So just screaming SOCIALISM is no more productive than just screaming RACISM. The definitions of the words ultimately become warped and lose all specific meaning.
.

Why is national defense seen as a socialist thing? Is it any less "socialist" than medicare?

 

[Mac1958]

Is anyone a else little sick of the way the term "socialism" is thrown around, all willy-nilly 'n stuff?

Wouldn't it be smart for us to AT LEAST agree on what the term means?

Please expound.

Okay.

Capitalism is an economic system which thrives on market competition. Capitalism generates the highest standard of living for the greatest amount of people. Socialism is both an economic and a governing system...and can create great wealth for a ruling class while repressing opportunity for many others. In between, but just as potentially repressive, is a system where the means of production is still privately owned, but so heavily regulated by the governing system as to render business virtually government owned.

Paying taxes and contributing to social programs does not turn a capitalist economy into a socialist form of government. A robust capitalist economy can afford to assist it's needy and elderly, as well as afford to provide clean air and water. No economy can afford more takers than contributors long term however.

Thanks.

Here's one of the points I'm trying to get to: America is (overall) a capitalist system, but there are clearly elements of it that could easily be identified as "socialist": Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare. Tax dollars that are used for things other than the national defense.

So it seems screamingly obvious to me that (a) socialistic elements will always exist here, and that (2) the discussion is better off being about finding the right equilibrium.

So just screaming SOCIALISM is no more productive than just screaming RACISM. The definitions of the words ultimately become warped and lose all specific meaning.
.

Why is national defense seen as a socialist thing? Is it any less "socialist" than medicare?

No, it's the other direction: Libertarians will usually say that the one (1) Constitutional responsibility of the federal government is national defense.

Essentially, everything beyond that is unconstitutional.
.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Is anyone a else little sick of the way the term "socialism" is thrown around, all willy-nilly 'n stuff?

Wouldn't it be smart for us to AT LEAST agree on what the term means?

Please expound.

Okay.

Capitalism is an economic system which thrives on market competition. Capitalism generates the highest standard of living for the greatest amount of people. Socialism is both an economic and a governing system...and can create great wealth for a ruling class while repressing opportunity for many others. In between, but just as potentially repressive, is a system where the means of production is still privately owned, but so heavily regulated by the governing system as to render business virtually government owned.

Paying taxes and contributing to social programs does not turn a capitalist economy into a socialist form of government. A robust capitalist economy can afford to assist it's needy and elderly, as well as afford to provide clean air and water. No economy can afford more takers than contributors long term however.

Thanks.

Here's one of the points I'm trying to get to: America is (overall) a capitalist system, but there are clearly elements of it that could easily be identified as "socialist": Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare. Tax dollars that are used for things other than the national defense.

So it seems screamingly obvious to me that (a) socialistic elements will always exist here, and that (2) the discussion is better off being about finding the right equilibrium.

So just screaming SOCIALISM is no more productive than just screaming RACISM. The definitions of the words ultimately become warped and lose all specific meaning.
.

Why is national defense seen as a socialist thing? Is it any less "socialist" than medicare?

No, it's the other direction: Libertarians will usually say that the one (1) Constitutional responsibility of the federal government is national defense.

Essentially, everything beyond that is unconstitutional.
.

I am not sure than something being constitutional means it is not also socialist.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Is anyone a else little sick of the way the term "socialism" is thrown around, all willy-nilly 'n stuff?

Wouldn't it be smart for us to AT LEAST agree on what the term means?

Please expound.

Okay.

Capitalism is an economic system which thrives on market competition. Capitalism generates the highest standard of living for the greatest amount of people. Socialism is both an economic and a governing system...and can create great wealth for a ruling class while repressing opportunity for many others. In between, but just as potentially repressive, is a system where the means of production is still privately owned, but so heavily regulated by the governing system as to render business virtually government owned.

Paying taxes and contributing to social programs does not turn a capitalist economy into a socialist form of government. A robust capitalist economy can afford to assist it's needy and elderly, as well as afford to provide clean air and water. No economy can afford more takers than contributors long term however.

Thanks.

Here's one of the points I'm trying to get to: America is (overall) a capitalist system, but there are clearly elements of it that could easily be identified as "socialist": Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare. Tax dollars that are used for things other than the national defense.

So it seems screamingly obvious to me that (a) socialistic elements will always exist here, and that (2) the discussion is better off being about finding the right equilibrium.

So just screaming SOCIALISM is no more productive than just screaming RACISM. The definitions of the words ultimately become warped and lose all specific meaning.
.

If I agree that some people in this nation have erroneously used the term "socialist" as a pejorative in an attempt to shut down discussion and intimidate the opposition and I also agree to the same claim about the term "racist", must I conclude that neither term carries meaning an more?

 

[Tehon]

Someone voted for "there is no in between".

I'd sure love to see an explanation of that.

I gave you an explanation.