communism v capitalism

[progressive hunter]

Communism can work in small groups.
No, no true communist country has never existed. Because it is a pipedream. People wont give up their power. That has been shown over and over with millions of lives lost.
Capitalism is freedom. There is also no capitalist countries. Obviously.
A pipe dream vs. Freedom. Hmmm

Is Capitalism 'freedom' though? Both the guided age and the eras of slavery in the US were both capitalistic.

Capitalism in practice is very, very compatible with monopolies, price fixing,

Fake News. Those practices are not Free Markets, that is why we have laws against monopoly market distortion and price fixing and certainly the solution isn't turning our Liberty over to the ultimate monopoly, Government. We limit our Government to specific tasks spelled out in our Constitution.

The criticism of communism have been that it always becomes something else. That IN PRACTICE, communism becomes authoritarian. Or collapses. Or that people refuse to give up their power.

Well, if that is our standard, then we must also judge capitalism IN PRACTICE. And see what it morphs into...

Fake News. First, of course we judge communism on its real world effects. Communism routinely fails to feed their own people, this is a fundamental system failure. Secondly, while yes the free flow of capital is important, so is the free flow of labor. Our system is simply Free Markets and Free Choice with labor and capital free to flow where we ask for it by price point.

... Our system hasn't always been....

This is the thesis statement of our form of government:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...​

That is the purpose of our government, for us to mutually secure our collective fundamental rights. Our government derives its legitimacy from our consent, and these rights are secured no through just any power, but through just power. In our system our government cannot legitimately exercise unjust power.

And while that was being written, we kept millions of people in slavery. With slavery codified into our constitution by counting them as 3/5ths a person. Undue power was baked into our nation from the moment of its inception.

Its only through imbuing the central government with more power could we mitigate the horrifying exploitation that capitalism tends toward. And the massive environmental damage. And the monopolies that capitalism natural trends toward.

All of these things weren't done because of capitalism, but in spite of it. And our nation has been better for it.

And ours is a constantly improving system. In the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

This constantly perfecting of our system to secure our rights is a task we inherit from our parents and pass to our children. The anti-slavery amendments should have been part of the original constitution, it shouldn't have waited 70 years. Women should have had the vote immediately, but the initial generation did what they could and left these improvements for following generations who didn't have to first defeat the reining world power to even begin. Rather than sitting in judgment on those that went before us, who accomplished far more than we have of this task, we should be diligently looking for ways to more perfectly secure the rights of our fellow citizens now. Should whole family lines be locked into intergenerational squalor or intergenerational incarceration?

With many of those improvements being the dilution of the undue power baked into our system. The elimination of slavery. The dismantling of Jim Crow. The cleaning up of our environment. The abolishment of child labor. The institution of public education and public safety regulation. The setting aside of public lands in our state and national forests. The establishment of national banks.

All of these were departures from capitalism, dilluttion of its most unstable, monopolistic, destructive or exploitative tendancies. And the embracing of more socialistic and even communistic tenets.

And our nation has benefited greatly from this hybrid system in which capitalism has been mitigated. And its often mitigated with socialism inspired tenets.

you should educate yourself better,, the list is to long for me to get into,,,

 

[Skylar]

Communism can work in small groups.
No, no true communist country has never existed. Because it is a pipedream. People wont give up their power. That has been shown over and over with millions of lives lost.
Capitalism is freedom. There is also no capitalist countries. Obviously.
A pipe dream vs. Freedom. Hmmm

Is Capitalism 'freedom' though? Both the guided age and the eras of slavery in the US were both capitalistic.

Capitalism in practice is very, very compatible with monopolies, price fixing,

Fake News. Those practices are not Free Markets, that is why we have laws against monopoly market distortion and price fixing and certainly the solution isn't turning our Liberty over to the ultimate monopoly, Government. We limit our Government to specific tasks spelled out in our Constitution.

The criticism of communism have been that it always becomes something else. That IN PRACTICE, communism becomes authoritarian. Or collapses. Or that people refuse to give up their power.

Well, if that is our standard, then we must also judge capitalism IN PRACTICE. And see what it morphs into...

Fake News. First, of course we judge communism on its real world effects. Communism routinely fails to feed their own people, this is a fundamental system failure. Secondly, while yes the free flow of capital is important, so is the free flow of labor. Our system is simply Free Markets and Free Choice with labor and capital free to flow where we ask for it by price point.

... Our system hasn't always been....

This is the thesis statement of our form of government:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...​

That is the purpose of our government, for us to mutually secure our collective fundamental rights. Our government derives its legitimacy from our consent, and these rights are secured no through just any power, but through just power. In our system our government cannot legitimately exercise unjust power.

And while that was being written, we kept millions of people in slavery. With slavery codified into our constitution by counting them as 3/5ths a person. Undue power was baked into our nation from the moment of its inception.

Its only through imbuing the central government with more power could we mitigate the horrifying exploitation that capitalism tends toward. And the massive environmental damage. And the monopolies that capitalism natural trends toward.

All of these things weren't done because of capitalism, but in spite of it. And our nation has been better for it.

And ours is a constantly improving system. In the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

This constantly perfecting of our system to secure our rights is a task we inherit from our parents and pass to our children. The anti-slavery amendments should have been part of the original constitution, it shouldn't have waited 70 years. Women should have had the vote immediately, but the initial generation did what they could and left these improvements for following generations who didn't have to first defeat the reining world power to even begin. Rather than sitting in judgment on those that went before us, who accomplished far more than we have of this task, we should be diligently looking for ways to more perfectly secure the rights of our fellow citizens now. Should whole family lines be locked into intergenerational squalor or intergenerational incarceration?

With many of those improvements being the dilution of the undue power baked into our system. The elimination of slavery. The dismantling of Jim Crow. The cleaning up of our environment. The abolishment of child labor. The institution of public education and public safety regulation. The setting aside of public lands in our state and national forests. The establishment of national banks.

All of these were departures from capitalism, dilluttion of its most unstable, monopolistic, destructive or exploitative tendancies. And the embracing of more socialistic and even communistic tenets.

And our nation has benefited greatly from this hybrid system in which capitalism has been mitigated. And its often mitigated with socialism inspired tenets.

you should educate yourself better,, the list is to long for me to get into,,,

Then why bother commenting at all? You contributed nothing to the conversation.

Try again. And please be civil. This is a great conversation.

 

[progressive hunter]

Communism can work in small groups.
No, no true communist country has never existed. Because it is a pipedream. People wont give up their power. That has been shown over and over with millions of lives lost.
Capitalism is freedom. There is also no capitalist countries. Obviously.
A pipe dream vs. Freedom. Hmmm

Is Capitalism 'freedom' though? Both the guided age and the eras of slavery in the US were both capitalistic.

Capitalism in practice is very, very compatible with monopolies, price fixing,

Fake News. Those practices are not Free Markets, that is why we have laws against monopoly market distortion and price fixing and certainly the solution isn't turning our Liberty over to the ultimate monopoly, Government. We limit our Government to specific tasks spelled out in our Constitution.

The criticism of communism have been that it always becomes something else. That IN PRACTICE, communism becomes authoritarian. Or collapses. Or that people refuse to give up their power.

Well, if that is our standard, then we must also judge capitalism IN PRACTICE. And see what it morphs into...

Fake News. First, of course we judge communism on its real world effects. Communism routinely fails to feed their own people, this is a fundamental system failure. Secondly, while yes the free flow of capital is important, so is the free flow of labor. Our system is simply Free Markets and Free Choice with labor and capital free to flow where we ask for it by price point.

... Our system hasn't always been....

This is the thesis statement of our form of government:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...​

That is the purpose of our government, for us to mutually secure our collective fundamental rights. Our government derives its legitimacy from our consent, and these rights are secured no through just any power, but through just power. In our system our government cannot legitimately exercise unjust power.

And while that was being written, we kept millions of people in slavery. With slavery codified into our constitution by counting them as 3/5ths a person. Undue power was baked into our nation from the moment of its inception.

Its only through imbuing the central government with more power could we mitigate the horrifying exploitation that capitalism tends toward. And the massive environmental damage. And the monopolies that capitalism natural trends toward.

All of these things weren't done because of capitalism, but in spite of it. And our nation has been better for it.

And ours is a constantly improving system. In the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

This constantly perfecting of our system to secure our rights is a task we inherit from our parents and pass to our children. The anti-slavery amendments should have been part of the original constitution, it shouldn't have waited 70 years. Women should have had the vote immediately, but the initial generation did what they could and left these improvements for following generations who didn't have to first defeat the reining world power to even begin. Rather than sitting in judgment on those that went before us, who accomplished far more than we have of this task, we should be diligently looking for ways to more perfectly secure the rights of our fellow citizens now. Should whole family lines be locked into intergenerational squalor or intergenerational incarceration?

With many of those improvements being the dilution of the undue power baked into our system. The elimination of slavery. The dismantling of Jim Crow. The cleaning up of our environment. The abolishment of child labor. The institution of public education and public safety regulation. The setting aside of public lands in our state and national forests. The establishment of national banks.

All of these were departures from capitalism, dilluttion of its most unstable, monopolistic, destructive or exploitative tendancies. And the embracing of more socialistic and even communistic tenets.

And our nation has benefited greatly from this hybrid system in which capitalism has been mitigated. And its often mitigated with socialism inspired tenets.

you should educate yourself better,, the list is to long for me to get into,,,

Then why bother commenting at all? You contributed nothing to the conversation.

Try again. And please be civil. This is a great conversation.

of course I contributed,, you just dont like it,,

tell us more about that 3/5th clause that codified slavery in our constitution???

 

[Skylar]

Communism can work in small groups.
No, no true communist country has never existed. Because it is a pipedream. People wont give up their power. That has been shown over and over with millions of lives lost.
Capitalism is freedom. There is also no capitalist countries. Obviously.
A pipe dream vs. Freedom. Hmmm

Is Capitalism 'freedom' though? Both the guided age and the eras of slavery in the US were both capitalistic.

Capitalism in practice is very, very compatible with monopolies, price fixing,

Fake News. Those practices are not Free Markets, that is why we have laws against monopoly market distortion and price fixing and certainly the solution isn't turning our Liberty over to the ultimate monopoly, Government. We limit our Government to specific tasks spelled out in our Constitution.

The criticism of communism have been that it always becomes something else. That IN PRACTICE, communism becomes authoritarian. Or collapses. Or that people refuse to give up their power.

Well, if that is our standard, then we must also judge capitalism IN PRACTICE. And see what it morphs into...

Fake News. First, of course we judge communism on its real world effects. Communism routinely fails to feed their own people, this is a fundamental system failure. Secondly, while yes the free flow of capital is important, so is the free flow of labor. Our system is simply Free Markets and Free Choice with labor and capital free to flow where we ask for it by price point.

... Our system hasn't always been....

This is the thesis statement of our form of government:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...​

That is the purpose of our government, for us to mutually secure our collective fundamental rights. Our government derives its legitimacy from our consent, and these rights are secured no through just any power, but through just power. In our system our government cannot legitimately exercise unjust power.

And while that was being written, we kept millions of people in slavery. With slavery codified into our constitution by counting them as 3/5ths a person. Undue power was baked into our nation from the moment of its inception.

Its only through imbuing the central government with more power could we mitigate the horrifying exploitation that capitalism tends toward. And the massive environmental damage. And the monopolies that capitalism natural trends toward.

All of these things weren't done because of capitalism, but in spite of it. And our nation has been better for it.

And ours is a constantly improving system. In the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

This constantly perfecting of our system to secure our rights is a task we inherit from our parents and pass to our children. The anti-slavery amendments should have been part of the original constitution, it shouldn't have waited 70 years. Women should have had the vote immediately, but the initial generation did what they could and left these improvements for following generations who didn't have to first defeat the reining world power to even begin. Rather than sitting in judgment on those that went before us, who accomplished far more than we have of this task, we should be diligently looking for ways to more perfectly secure the rights of our fellow citizens now. Should whole family lines be locked into intergenerational squalor or intergenerational incarceration?

With many of those improvements being the dilution of the undue power baked into our system. The elimination of slavery. The dismantling of Jim Crow. The cleaning up of our environment. The abolishment of child labor. The institution of public education and public safety regulation. The setting aside of public lands in our state and national forests. The establishment of national banks.

All of these were departures from capitalism, dilluttion of its most unstable, monopolistic, destructive or exploitative tendancies. And the embracing of more socialistic and even communistic tenets.

And our nation has benefited greatly from this hybrid system in which capitalism has been mitigated. And its often mitigated with socialism inspired tenets.

you should educate yourself better,, the list is to long for me to get into,,,

Then why bother commenting at all? You contributed nothing to the conversation.

Try again. And please be civil. This is a great conversation.

of course I contributed,, you just dont like it,,

tell us more about that 3/5th clause that codified slavery in our constitution???

Dude, look it up. I'll even start you on your way:

Three-fifths compromise | Definition, Purpose, & History

Three-fifths compromise, compromise agreement between the delegates from the Northern and the Southern states at the United States Constitutional Convention (1787) that three-fifths of the slave population would be counted for determining direct taxation and representation in the House of...

www.britannica.com

Come on back when you have something useful to contribute to the conversation.

 

[progressive hunter]

Communism can work in small groups.
No, no true communist country has never existed. Because it is a pipedream. People wont give up their power. That has been shown over and over with millions of lives lost.
Capitalism is freedom. There is also no capitalist countries. Obviously.
A pipe dream vs. Freedom. Hmmm

Is Capitalism 'freedom' though? Both the guided age and the eras of slavery in the US were both capitalistic.

Capitalism in practice is very, very compatible with monopolies, price fixing,

Fake News. Those practices are not Free Markets, that is why we have laws against monopoly market distortion and price fixing and certainly the solution isn't turning our Liberty over to the ultimate monopoly, Government. We limit our Government to specific tasks spelled out in our Constitution.

The criticism of communism have been that it always becomes something else. That IN PRACTICE, communism becomes authoritarian. Or collapses. Or that people refuse to give up their power.

Well, if that is our standard, then we must also judge capitalism IN PRACTICE. And see what it morphs into...

Fake News. First, of course we judge communism on its real world effects. Communism routinely fails to feed their own people, this is a fundamental system failure. Secondly, while yes the free flow of capital is important, so is the free flow of labor. Our system is simply Free Markets and Free Choice with labor and capital free to flow where we ask for it by price point.

... Our system hasn't always been....

This is the thesis statement of our form of government:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...​

That is the purpose of our government, for us to mutually secure our collective fundamental rights. Our government derives its legitimacy from our consent, and these rights are secured no through just any power, but through just power. In our system our government cannot legitimately exercise unjust power.

And while that was being written, we kept millions of people in slavery. With slavery codified into our constitution by counting them as 3/5ths a person. Undue power was baked into our nation from the moment of its inception.

Its only through imbuing the central government with more power could we mitigate the horrifying exploitation that capitalism tends toward. And the massive environmental damage. And the monopolies that capitalism natural trends toward.

All of these things weren't done because of capitalism, but in spite of it. And our nation has been better for it.

And ours is a constantly improving system. In the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

This constantly perfecting of our system to secure our rights is a task we inherit from our parents and pass to our children. The anti-slavery amendments should have been part of the original constitution, it shouldn't have waited 70 years. Women should have had the vote immediately, but the initial generation did what they could and left these improvements for following generations who didn't have to first defeat the reining world power to even begin. Rather than sitting in judgment on those that went before us, who accomplished far more than we have of this task, we should be diligently looking for ways to more perfectly secure the rights of our fellow citizens now. Should whole family lines be locked into intergenerational squalor or intergenerational incarceration?

With many of those improvements being the dilution of the undue power baked into our system. The elimination of slavery. The dismantling of Jim Crow. The cleaning up of our environment. The abolishment of child labor. The institution of public education and public safety regulation. The setting aside of public lands in our state and national forests. The establishment of national banks.

All of these were departures from capitalism, dilluttion of its most unstable, monopolistic, destructive or exploitative tendancies. And the embracing of more socialistic and even communistic tenets.

And our nation has benefited greatly from this hybrid system in which capitalism has been mitigated. And its often mitigated with socialism inspired tenets.

you should educate yourself better,, the list is to long for me to get into,,,

Then why bother commenting at all? You contributed nothing to the conversation.

Try again. And please be civil. This is a great conversation.

of course I contributed,, you just dont like it,,

tell us more about that 3/5th clause that codified slavery in our constitution???

Dude, look it up. I'll even start you on your way:

Three-fifths compromise | Definition, Purpose, & History

Three-fifths compromise, compromise agreement between the delegates from the Northern and the Southern states at the United States Constitutional Convention (1787) that three-fifths of the slave population would be counted for determining direct taxation and representation in the House of...

www.britannica.com

Come on back when you have something useful to contribute to the conversation.

arent you leaving out without it that without it we wouldnt have a constitution?? and if it wasnt there slavery might well still exist today,, well in america cause it still exist most places in the world,,,

but go ahead and tell us more about how smart you are and why we are so bad,,,

 

[Skylar]

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property private ownership and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) when they proclaimed that in a socialist society “the condition for the free development of each is the free development of all.”

This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.

Its entirely possible to have a hybrid system. For all the claims among conservatives that 'socialism doesn't work', tenets of socialism work fine. For example....single payer healthcare. Almost every industrialized nation on the planet has some form of it. And its leans heavily toward socialism. Public schools, national parks, national banks, labor laws, environmental protections.....all skew the same way.

Capitalism, when restrained and mitigated in a hybrid system, is a powerful engine of commerce. But left to its own devices, it becomes wildly unstable, environmentally destructive, horrifically exploitative, anti-competitive and monopolistic. A stronger central government tempered by more socialistic tenets can mitigate these tendencies.

And yes, we can absolutely pick and choose what we want. There is no requirement that if we have ANY socialist leaning institutions, all institutions must be. As demonstrated by robust hybrid economies around the world with both free markets....and single payer healthcare and public education.

 

[progressive hunter]

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property private ownership and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) when they proclaimed that in a socialist society “the condition for the free development of each is the free development of all.”

This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.

Its entirely possible to have a hybrid system. For all the claims among conservatives that 'socialism doesn't work', tenets of socialism work fine. For example....single payer healthcare. Almost every industrialized nation on the planet has some form of it. And its leans heavily toward socialism. Public schools, national parks, national banks, labor laws, environmental protections.....all skew the same way.

Capitalism, when restrained and mitigated in a hybrid system, is a powerful engine of commerce. But left to its own devices, it becomes wildly unstable, environmentally destructive, horrifically exploitative, anti-competitive and monopolistic. A stronger central government tempered by more socialistic tenets can mitigate these tendencies.

And yes, we can absolutely pick and choose what we want. There is no requirement that if we have ANY socialist leaning institutions, all institutions must be. As demonstrated by robust hybrid economies around the world with both free markets....and single payer healthcare and public education.

why dont you just move to one of those countries and leave us alone???

 

[Skylar]

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property private ownership and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) when they proclaimed that in a socialist society “the condition for the free development of each is the free development of all.”

This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.

Its entirely possible to have a hybrid system. For all the claims among conservatives that 'socialism doesn't work', tenets of socialism work fine. For example....single payer healthcare. Almost every industrialized nation on the planet has some form of it. And its leans heavily toward socialism. Public schools, national parks, national banks, labor laws, environmental protections.....all skew the same way.

Capitalism, when restrained and mitigated in a hybrid system, is a powerful engine of commerce. But left to its own devices, it becomes wildly unstable, environmentally destructive, horrifically exploitative, anti-competitive and monopolistic. A stronger central government tempered by more socialistic tenets can mitigate these tendencies.

And yes, we can absolutely pick and choose what we want. There is no requirement that if we have ANY socialist leaning institutions, all institutions must be. As demonstrated by robust hybrid economies around the world with both free markets....and single payer healthcare and public education.

why dont you just move to one of those countries and leave us alone???

Because we're already a hybrid economy, having embraced both tenets of capitalism and socialism.

And our economy benefits from both.

 

[progressive hunter]

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property private ownership and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) when they proclaimed that in a socialist society “the condition for the free development of each is the free development of all.”

This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.

Its entirely possible to have a hybrid system. For all the claims among conservatives that 'socialism doesn't work', tenets of socialism work fine. For example....single payer healthcare. Almost every industrialized nation on the planet has some form of it. And its leans heavily toward socialism. Public schools, national parks, national banks, labor laws, environmental protections.....all skew the same way.

Capitalism, when restrained and mitigated in a hybrid system, is a powerful engine of commerce. But left to its own devices, it becomes wildly unstable, environmentally destructive, horrifically exploitative, anti-competitive and monopolistic. A stronger central government tempered by more socialistic tenets can mitigate these tendencies.

And yes, we can absolutely pick and choose what we want. There is no requirement that if we have ANY socialist leaning institutions, all institutions must be. As demonstrated by robust hybrid economies around the world with both free markets....and single payer healthcare and public education.

why dont you just move to one of those countries and leave us alone???

Because we're already a hybrid economy, having embraced both tenets of capitalism and socialism.

but youre leaving out its the socialist parts that are causing the biggest obstacles and harm,,,

 

[Skylar]

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property private ownership and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) when they proclaimed that in a socialist society “the condition for the free development of each is the free development of all.”

This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.

Its entirely possible to have a hybrid system. For all the claims among conservatives that 'socialism doesn't work', tenets of socialism work fine. For example....single payer healthcare. Almost every industrialized nation on the planet has some form of it. And its leans heavily toward socialism. Public schools, national parks, national banks, labor laws, environmental protections.....all skew the same way.

Capitalism, when restrained and mitigated in a hybrid system, is a powerful engine of commerce. But left to its own devices, it becomes wildly unstable, environmentally destructive, horrifically exploitative, anti-competitive and monopolistic. A stronger central government tempered by more socialistic tenets can mitigate these tendencies.

And yes, we can absolutely pick and choose what we want. There is no requirement that if we have ANY socialist leaning institutions, all institutions must be. As demonstrated by robust hybrid economies around the world with both free markets....and single payer healthcare and public education.

why dont you just move to one of those countries and leave us alone???

Because we're already a hybrid economy, having embraced both tenets of capitalism and socialism.

but youre leaving out its the socialist parts that are causing the biggest obstacles and harm,,,

Enlighten us. Remembering of course, that we can pick and choose what we want.

Capitalism can have horrific costs. But mitigated, it works quite well. Socialism's costs can be mitigated as well.

Again, you already live in a hybrid of the two.

 

[progressive hunter]

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property private ownership and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) when they proclaimed that in a socialist society “the condition for the free development of each is the free development of all.”

This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.

Its entirely possible to have a hybrid system. For all the claims among conservatives that 'socialism doesn't work', tenets of socialism work fine. For example....single payer healthcare. Almost every industrialized nation on the planet has some form of it. And its leans heavily toward socialism. Public schools, national parks, national banks, labor laws, environmental protections.....all skew the same way.

Capitalism, when restrained and mitigated in a hybrid system, is a powerful engine of commerce. But left to its own devices, it becomes wildly unstable, environmentally destructive, horrifically exploitative, anti-competitive and monopolistic. A stronger central government tempered by more socialistic tenets can mitigate these tendencies.

And yes, we can absolutely pick and choose what we want. There is no requirement that if we have ANY socialist leaning institutions, all institutions must be. As demonstrated by robust hybrid economies around the world with both free markets....and single payer healthcare and public education.

why dont you just move to one of those countries and leave us alone???

Because we're already a hybrid economy, having embraced both tenets of capitalism and socialism.

but youre leaving out its the socialist parts that are causing the biggest obstacles and harm,,,

Enlighten us. Remembering of course, that we can pick and choose what we want.

Capitalism can have horrific costs. But mitigated, it works quite well. Socialism's costs can be mitigated as well.

Again, you already live in a hybrid of the two.

life has horrific costs,,,

we can start with taxs that have destroyed the manufacturing base in this country and moved it to china and go to regs from there,, and of course theres min wage that stops the poor from getting jobs,,

lets not forget welfare that allows for people to not even work at all and live off the people that do,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property private ownership and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) when they proclaimed that in a socialist society “the condition for the free development of each is the free development of all.”

This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.

Its entirely possible to have a hybrid system. For all the claims among conservatives that 'socialism doesn't work', tenets of socialism work fine. For example....single payer healthcare. Almost every industrialized nation on the planet has some form of it. And its leans heavily toward socialism. Public schools, national parks, national banks, labor laws, environmental protections.....all skew the same way.

Capitalism, when restrained and mitigated in a hybrid system, is a powerful engine of commerce. But left to its own devices, it becomes wildly unstable, environmentally destructive, horrifically exploitative, anti-competitive and monopolistic. A stronger central government tempered by more socialistic tenets can mitigate these tendencies.

And yes, we can absolutely pick and choose what we want. There is no requirement that if we have ANY socialist leaning institutions, all institutions must be. As demonstrated by robust hybrid economies around the world with both free markets....and single payer healthcare and public education.

why dont you just move to one of those countries and leave us alone???

Because we're already a hybrid economy, having embraced both tenets of capitalism and socialism.

but youre leaving out its the socialist parts that are causing the biggest obstacles and harm,,,

Enlighten us. Remembering of course, that we can pick and choose what we want.

Capitalism can have horrific costs. But mitigated, it works quite well. Socialism's costs can be mitigated as well.

Again, you already live in a hybrid of the two.

you cant mitigate what always wants more,,,
capitalism is always based on demand,,,

 

[Skylar]

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property private ownership and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) when they proclaimed that in a socialist society “the condition for the free development of each is the free development of all.”

This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.

Its entirely possible to have a hybrid system. For all the claims among conservatives that 'socialism doesn't work', tenets of socialism work fine. For example....single payer healthcare. Almost every industrialized nation on the planet has some form of it. And its leans heavily toward socialism. Public schools, national parks, national banks, labor laws, environmental protections.....all skew the same way.

Capitalism, when restrained and mitigated in a hybrid system, is a powerful engine of commerce. But left to its own devices, it becomes wildly unstable, environmentally destructive, horrifically exploitative, anti-competitive and monopolistic. A stronger central government tempered by more socialistic tenets can mitigate these tendencies.

And yes, we can absolutely pick and choose what we want. There is no requirement that if we have ANY socialist leaning institutions, all institutions must be. As demonstrated by robust hybrid economies around the world with both free markets....and single payer healthcare and public education.

why dont you just move to one of those countries and leave us alone???

Because we're already a hybrid economy, having embraced both tenets of capitalism and socialism.

but youre leaving out its the socialist parts that are causing the biggest obstacles and harm,,,

Enlighten us. Remembering of course, that we can pick and choose what we want.

Capitalism can have horrific costs. But mitigated, it works quite well. Socialism's costs can be mitigated as well.

Again, you already live in a hybrid of the two.

life has horrific costs,,,

we can start with taxs that have destroyed the manufacturing base in this country and moved it to china and go to regs from there,, and of course theres min wage that stops the poor from getting jobs,,

Taxes exist in any organized system of government. And your claims that our manufacturing base is 'destroyed' is comically exaggerated.

Manufacturers in the United States account for 11.39% of the total output in the economy, employing 8.51% of the workforce. Total output from manufacturing was $2,334.60 billion in 2018. In addition, there were an average of 12.8 million manufacturing employees in the United States in 2018, with an average annual compensation of $84,832.13 in 2017.

With your claims that 'taxes' destroyed the manufacturing base unfounded. Factors like mechanization and more effecient international distribution networks allowing US manufactureres to shift some of their operations to lower payed workers overseas is a far greater factor in any manufacturing decline than 'taxes'.

 

[Unkotare]

Why are you all helping this freshman with his pol/sci project?

 

[Skylar]

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property private ownership and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) when they proclaimed that in a socialist society “the condition for the free development of each is the free development of all.”

This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.

Its entirely possible to have a hybrid system. For all the claims among conservatives that 'socialism doesn't work', tenets of socialism work fine. For example....single payer healthcare. Almost every industrialized nation on the planet has some form of it. And its leans heavily toward socialism. Public schools, national parks, national banks, labor laws, environmental protections.....all skew the same way.

Capitalism, when restrained and mitigated in a hybrid system, is a powerful engine of commerce. But left to its own devices, it becomes wildly unstable, environmentally destructive, horrifically exploitative, anti-competitive and monopolistic. A stronger central government tempered by more socialistic tenets can mitigate these tendencies.

And yes, we can absolutely pick and choose what we want. There is no requirement that if we have ANY socialist leaning institutions, all institutions must be. As demonstrated by robust hybrid economies around the world with both free markets....and single payer healthcare and public education.

why dont you just move to one of those countries and leave us alone???

Because we're already a hybrid economy, having embraced both tenets of capitalism and socialism.

but youre leaving out its the socialist parts that are causing the biggest obstacles and harm,,,

Enlighten us. Remembering of course, that we can pick and choose what we want.

Capitalism can have horrific costs. But mitigated, it works quite well. Socialism's costs can be mitigated as well.

Again, you already live in a hybrid of the two.

you cant mitigate what always wants more,,,
capitalism is always based on demand,,,

Sure you can. Pure capitalism is all about unrestrained growth. Unrestrained, it leads to massive environmental damage, horrid exploitation, anti-competative practices, and monopolies.

As capitalism always wants more profits.

Yet we restrain it with social safety nets, environmental regulations, anti-competative practice prohibitions, labor laws, safety regulations, preserve natural resources that it would otherwise consume in their entirity, create central banks to limit economic instability.

Its entirely possible to pick and choose what aspects of each system you want to use. And to mitigate the costs.

 

[Zorro!]

Communism can work in small groups.
No, no true communist country has never existed. Because it is a pipedream. People wont give up their power. That has been shown over and over with millions of lives lost.
Capitalism is freedom. There is also no capitalist countries. Obviously.
A pipe dream vs. Freedom. Hmmm

Is Capitalism 'freedom' though? Both the guided age and the eras of slavery in the US were both capitalistic.

Capitalism in practice is very, very compatible with monopolies, price fixing,

Fake News. Those practices are not Free Markets, that is why we have laws against monopoly market distortion and price fixing and certainly the solution isn't turning our Liberty over to the ultimate monopoly, Government. We limit our Government to specific tasks spelled out in our Constitution.

The criticism of communism have been that it always becomes something else. That IN PRACTICE, communism becomes authoritarian. Or collapses. Or that people refuse to give up their power.

Well, if that is our standard, then we must also judge capitalism IN PRACTICE. And see what it morphs into...

Fake News. First, of course we judge communism on its real world effects. Communism routinely fails to feed their own people, this is a fundamental system failure. Secondly, while yes the free flow of capital is important, so is the free flow of labor. Our system is simply Free Markets and Free Choice with labor and capital free to flow where we ask for it by price point.

... Our system hasn't always been....

This is the thesis statement of our form of government:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...​

That is the purpose of our government, for us to mutually secure our collective fundamental rights. Our government derives its legitimacy from our consent, and these rights are secured no through just any power, but through just power. In our system our government cannot legitimately exercise unjust power.

And while that was being written, we kept millions of people in slavery...

Yes. Many of the Framers were uneasy slave owners. They thought Slavery was dying out, they limited the power of the Slave States to the extent they could with the 3/5ths rule and left it to future leaders to move the ball further down the field when they had the opportunity to do so. Then, confounding expectations, Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin and slavery exploded, 70 years later the issue of slavery exploded the nation and a terrible price was paid for the injustices that had occurred. From Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural shortly before his violent death. He saw the Civil War as God's justice for allowing this evil institution into our Nation:

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."​

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.​

A great crime was committed, a terrible price was paid. If you wish to judge them further you are free to do so, but I'll not join you. We have an abundance of undealt with evil in our society that needs remedy, I'll not sit in judgment of our Great Great Grandfathers rather than focus on more perfectly securing the rights of our fellow Amricans who live and draw breath today, in terrible conditions.

... Its only through imbuing the central government with more power could we mitigate the horrifying exploitation...

Yes. In our Constitution as drafted, it spoke of the "priviledges and immunities" that are our right but it did not state how the government was to secure those rights against States that violated those rights. So some 70 years later a terrible war was fought and the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were ratified, with the ratification of these amendments the price exacted from the succeeded, defeated slave states under military occupation, in order to resume their place as States with representation in the Federal Government.

And our Federal Government secures individual rights against encroachment by any level of Government, whether Federal, State or Local.

 

[Unkotare]

If you want to do some pondering, take a gander at the first draft of the declaration of independence.

 

[TNHarley]

Communism can work in small groups.
No, no true communist country has never existed. Because it is a pipedream. People wont give up their power. That has been shown over and over with millions of lives lost.
Capitalism is freedom. There is also no capitalist countries. Obviously.
A pipe dream vs. Freedom. Hmmm

Is Capitalism 'freedom' though? Both the guided age and the eras of slavery in the US were both capitalistic.

Capitalism in practice is very, very compatible with monopolies, price fixing, hideous exploitation, massive inequality, and horrendous abuses of power. Due to its emphasis on unrestrained growth, capitalism also tends to be utterly brutal on the environment and consequently the people that breath, eat or drink water in such a system.

This same emphasis on growth could be argued to be a strong incentive for starting wars of conquest to open markets and acquire resources. The Opium Wars were draped in the rationale of freedom and commerce......but were in reality about forcing an addictive drug with severe social costs on a country that didn't want it.

Capitalism can also work in an environment of freedom and equality. But there's nothing intrinsic about it.

No pure capitalist wants people dumping chemicals into waterways and shit. You can have a true capitalist economy with basic environmental regulations.
Slavery isnt capitalism. Slavery is an anathema to capitalism.
Abuses of power isnt capitalism. That is the government abusing power.
Creating war for profit isnt capitalism. War is declared by the government.

When have we ever had 'pure capitalism'? This is like 'pure communism'. Its too fragile to exist in the real world. Its an ivory tower idea. In which case, the 'capitalism v communism' debate is easy to resolve:

They're both too fragile to be useful.

We havent.
Pure Capitalism is as progressive as you can get.
Probably never happen, either.

 

[progressive hunter]

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property private ownership and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) when they proclaimed that in a socialist society “the condition for the free development of each is the free development of all.”

This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.

Its entirely possible to have a hybrid system. For all the claims among conservatives that 'socialism doesn't work', tenets of socialism work fine. For example....single payer healthcare. Almost every industrialized nation on the planet has some form of it. And its leans heavily toward socialism. Public schools, national parks, national banks, labor laws, environmental protections.....all skew the same way.

Capitalism, when restrained and mitigated in a hybrid system, is a powerful engine of commerce. But left to its own devices, it becomes wildly unstable, environmentally destructive, horrifically exploitative, anti-competitive and monopolistic. A stronger central government tempered by more socialistic tenets can mitigate these tendencies.

And yes, we can absolutely pick and choose what we want. There is no requirement that if we have ANY socialist leaning institutions, all institutions must be. As demonstrated by robust hybrid economies around the world with both free markets....and single payer healthcare and public education.

why dont you just move to one of those countries and leave us alone???

Because we're already a hybrid economy, having embraced both tenets of capitalism and socialism.

but youre leaving out its the socialist parts that are causing the biggest obstacles and harm,,,

Enlighten us. Remembering of course, that we can pick and choose what we want.

Capitalism can have horrific costs. But mitigated, it works quite well. Socialism's costs can be mitigated as well.

Again, you already live in a hybrid of the two.

you cant mitigate what always wants more,,,
capitalism is always based on demand,,,

Sure you can. Pure capitalism is all about unrestrained growth. Unrestrained, it leads to massive environmental damage, horrid exploitation, anti-competative practices, and monopolies.

As capitalism always wants more profits.

Yet we restrain it with social safety nets, environmental regulations, anti-competative practice prohibitions, labor laws, safety regulations, preserve natural resources that it would otherwise consume in their entirity, create central banks to limit economic instability.

Its entirely possible to pick and choose what aspects of each system you want to use. And to mitigate the costs.

you havent said what kind of capitalism your talking about,, governemnt ran capitalism or free market capitalism??

cause all the problem youre describing is due to government control and not the supply and demand that controls a true free market system,, and those same problems exist in anything ran by government ,,

 

[Unkotare]

If you want to drain the Stupid out of an empty-headed "I took an intro pol/sci course once" liberal, stick him in a communist country (yes, even if in name only) for a few years.