The difference between capitalism and socialism in a nutshell

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Right. You actually think that would work? What if you are traveling, and have a car wreck? .

dear, we were talking about fire insurance, not auto insurance. Why not try again?

No darling we are talking about the Fire Department.

yes so you pay your bill and they but the fire out and rebuilt too if they want to be in the insurance business too. And????

 

[SwimExpert]

Please explain why the military is not Socialist or the VA?

The burden of proof is on you.

Miriam Webster
Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


The collective/government (we are the government, even if you don't want to admit it) owns and administers the military. We all pay for it through taxes. The goods the military produces is their service. Of course the military is purely socialism. If you disagree, prove me wrong.

Does it hurt to be that stupid? If not, it ought to.

So that means you can't prove me wrong?

It means you are a ******* idiot. Doubly so, because you can't even see why that post was quite possibly the stupidest ******* post ever seen on this forum.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Please explain why the military is not Socialist or the VA?

The burden of proof is on you.

Miriam Webster
Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


The collective/government (we are the government, even if you don't want to admit it) owns and administers the military. We all pay for it through taxes. The goods the military produces is their service. Of course the military is purely socialism. If you disagree, prove me wrong.

Does it hurt to be that stupid? If not, it ought to.

So that means you can't prove me wrong?

It means you are a ******* idiot. Doubly so, because you can't even see why that post was quite possibly the stupidest ******* post ever seen on this forum.

sorry but the military is generally not considered socialist.

 

[Iceweasel]

Probably so. BUT it really wasn't a free market when the monopolies formed and had almost total control of the marketplace.

Monopolies are very much consistent with a free market. But they do underscore the fact that reasonable limitations of the freedom of a market can be beneficial to the health of an economy.

Monopolies don't exist without eliminating competition. How do you figure that's the free market?

 

[SwimExpert]

Monopolies don't exist without eliminating competition. How do you figure that's the free market?

Because they are operating their business as they see fit.

 

[BULLDOG]

There are aspects of Socialism that augment and safeguard the citizens without hampering Capitalism. That's what makes arguments against Socialism, like yours which presents either Communism (state control of industry) and Fascism (government directives to industry concerning production) utterly moot.

What "aspects" would those be? There really arent any, or many.

Fire Department, Police Department, Garbage pickup, Road construction and repair, Public Schools. Explain these, and I'll give you another list.

OMG! That's you again with way off the wall crap. The above mentioned services paid by taxpayers are not services characteristic only to socialism. They existed before our grandparents were in their infancy and socialism as ideology wasn't even born. Except public schools and garbage pickup (but there were dog catchers) they existed even in feudalist monarchies.
I think many of you communist sympathizers are "over indoctrinated." You at least need to sound credible.

Of course they existed. I'm not sure when the word was first coined, but they all fit the definition exactly. Someone probably looked at all those good programs and said "We probably should come up with a word to describe this socially responsible way of taking care of each other......How about Socialism"

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Probably so. BUT it really wasn't a free market when the monopolies formed and had almost total control of the marketplace.

Monopolies are very much consistent with a free market. But they do underscore the fact that reasonable limitations of the freedom of a market can be beneficial to the health of an economy.

Monopolies don't exist without eliminating competition. How do you figure that's the free market?

monopolies rarely appear in capitalism and when they do, they disappear due to complacency and the new competition it inspires. Also, most ardent capitalists don't mind breaking them up if they do appear so its hardly a pressing issue. Its not the tendency toward monopolies that matters in Republican capitalism but rather the tendency to make everyone rich that matters.

 

[Iceweasel]

I've not bashed capitalism. I've lauded it. Its efficiency, its ability to match supply of a good or service with the demand for it, its push toward innovation. I've simly recognized that unchecked, it comes with some significant negative consequences as well: instability, concentrations of private power, and massive environmental damage.

Regulated capitalism, in my personal opinion, is the best economic system we've created to date. It provides all the advantages of capitalism (efficiency, innovation) with less of the costs (instability, environmental damage, concentrations of private power). Its the system I advocate, enjoy using for my personal benefit, and suggest we continue using.

And I'm lauded many conservative values. I think their emphasis on personal gain shows a solid understanding of what motivates people. I think that they are right in that too much assistance from the government (or anyone) can mute such motivation. I respect their emphasis on family values, sharing many of them. I respect their emphasis on hard work, and I share it. I respect their recognition of the value of consequence, as I agree it is a most able teacher. I'm an enormous fan of entrepreneurship, and believe that it is the single greatest tool we can use to combat poverty. Even more so than education.

Where I disagree with many conservatives is in their insistence that their values must be purely and universally applied. I think they have their place. But I think there are many instances where they don't work as well. Where a 'pure' implementation of their philosophies can be more harmful than good. I'm more concerned with the utility and quality of outcome rather than the purity of process. So if pure capitalism doesn't produce good results, I'm more than happy to regulate it to get better results.

And no, I don't believe that any means are justified by the ends. I think the ends and means must both be taken into account.

Capitalists aren't anarchists, quit reciting Marxist bullshit. Capitalists want their children to grow up breathing clean air and drinking clean water. As far as the purity of outcome and process stuff, I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[BULLDOG]

So now you think we have a Communist form of government?

too stupid our subject was not what form of govt we have so I did not comment on that at all. Our subject was about the meaning of socialism. Do you understand these basics?

You're the one that brought commanding heights.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So now you think we have a Communist form of government?

too stupid our subject was not what form of govt we have so I did not comment on that at all. Our subject was about the meaning of socialism. Do you understand these basics?

You're the one that brought commanding heights.

yes dear as a working definition of socialism not as a description of what we have in America. Still way way over your head- right??

 

[BULLDOG]

Please explain why the military is not Socialist or the VA?

The burden of proof is on you.

Miriam Webster
Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


The collective/government (we are the government, even if you don't want to admit it) owns and administers the military. We all pay for it through taxes. The goods the military produces is their service. Of course the military is purely socialism. If you disagree, prove me wrong.

Does it hurt to be that stupid? If not, it ought to.

So that means you can't prove me wrong?

It means you are a ******* idiot. Doubly so, because you can't even see why that post was quite possibly the stupidest ******* post ever seen on this forum.

OK. Then it should be easy to prove me wrong then.

 

[BULLDOG]

The burden of proof is on you.

Miriam Webster
Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


The collective/government (we are the government, even if you don't want to admit it) owns and administers the military. We all pay for it through taxes. The goods the military produces is their service. Of course the military is purely socialism. If you disagree, prove me wrong.

Does it hurt to be that stupid? If not, it ought to.

So that means you can't prove me wrong?

It means you are a ******* idiot. Doubly so, because you can't even see why that post was quite possibly the stupidest ******* post ever seen on this forum.

sorry but the military is generally not considered socialist.

Just because you don't understand what socialism means doesn't mean the military doesn't meet all the criteria of a socialist program. Here is a hint. Look it up for yourself. Socialism is not just a generic word for "BAD". It has a specific meaning.

 

[SwimExpert]

The burden of proof is on you.

Miriam Webster
Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


The collective/government (we are the government, even if you don't want to admit it) owns and administers the military. We all pay for it through taxes. The goods the military produces is their service. Of course the military is purely socialism. If you disagree, prove me wrong.

Does it hurt to be that stupid? If not, it ought to.

So that means you can't prove me wrong?

It means you are a ******* idiot. Doubly so, because you can't even see why that post was quite possibly the stupidest ******* post ever seen on this forum.

OK. Then it should be easy to prove me wrong then.

You've already proven yourself wrong, you're just too much of a ******* idiot to know it.

 

[Iceweasel]

Just because you don't understand what socialism means doesn't mean the military doesn't meet all the criteria of a socialist program. Here is a hint. Look it up for yourself. Socialism is not just a generic word for "BAD". It has a specific meaning.

Yes, and it doesn't include a military funded by the private sector. The structure may be socialist in nature being top down management but our military doesn't exist except by taxing the private sector working on their own initiative.

 

[BULLDOG]

So now you think we have a Communist form of government?

too stupid our subject was not what form of govt we have so I did not comment on that at all. Our subject was about the meaning of socialism. Do you understand these basics?

You're the one that brought commanding heights.

yes dear as a working definition of socialism not as a description of what we have in America. Still way way over your head- right??

You sidestepping idiot. You brought up commanding heights as some sort of explanation of how socialism only included big industries. Go back and read what you wrote idiot.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. You brought up commanding heights as some sort of explanation of how socialism only included big industries..

yes dear I brought it up to help define socialism for you. And???

 

[BULLDOG]

Miriam Webster
Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


The collective/government (we are the government, even if you don't want to admit it) owns and administers the military. We all pay for it through taxes. The goods the military produces is their service. Of course the military is purely socialism. If you disagree, prove me wrong.

Does it hurt to be that stupid? If not, it ought to.

So that means you can't prove me wrong?

It means you are a ******* idiot. Doubly so, because you can't even see why that post was quite possibly the stupidest ******* post ever seen on this forum.

OK. Then it should be easy to prove me wrong then.

You've already proven yourself wrong, you're just too much of a ******* idiot to know it.

coward.

 

[SwimExpert]

coward.

You're right. Fewer things are more scary than stupidity.

 

[BULLDOG]

Just because you don't understand what socialism means doesn't mean the military doesn't meet all the criteria of a socialist program. Here is a hint. Look it up for yourself. Socialism is not just a generic word for "BAD". It has a specific meaning.

Yes, and it doesn't include a military funded by the private sector. The structure may be socialist in nature being top down management but our military doesn't exist except by taxing the private sector working on their own initiative.

Of course they tax the private sector. That's what socialism is. The collective.....I know that word scares you, so lets just say group....The group pays for expenses and the group elects the politicians who tell the military what to do. Of course the military has a lot of leeway in what they do, but that is only because the group's elective representatives allow them to do that. Socialism isn't top down management , no matter what rush told you. Look it up.

 

[Coyote]

I disagree - look at the so-called Gilded Age in America. That was the height of unfettered, unregulated capitalism and it was certainly free market capitalism. Not only was it a period of huge economic opportunity and wealth for some, it was a period of grinding poverty, abuse, and desperation for many, which made socialism and communism and easy sell.

Probably so. BUT it really wasn't a free market when the monopolies formed and had almost total control of the marketplace.

New technologies in transportation, communication, manufacturing, inventions, etc. caused the market to explode. Some took advantage of it and in a ruthless fashion. Unregulated capitalism is basically anarchy. Mad Max comes in, kills you and takes your shit. The problem was government was too slow and too corrupt to do much about it. Corruption was widespread in those days and they were not on the ball, too many looking out for numero uno.

The pendulum has swung too far now though and government is over regulating the marketplace and again, the Golden Rule applies, them that has the gold makes the rules. The problem isn't capitalism, it's the people at the helm. And history proves that governments will run an economy aground if given the opportunity.

I agree - unregulated capitalism is - not anarchy per se - but a ruthless survival of the fittest that devalues human life.

The problem however IS capitalism - it's capitalism taken to it's extreme. That's why regulation is needed.

Where I see the need for socialism is that there is nothing in capitalism that will provide for those in need unless fickle human nature decides it.

I do agree though, that capitalism has proven to be the only economic system that is sustainable over the long term. Socialist systems stagnate.