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.

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.

My point is that the Constitution allows for (what could be considered by some) socialist elements to become law.

Such as Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare.

So a "capitalist system" is not going to be 100% pure. The task, then, is to find the most effective and efficient percentage, not to say we're socialist or not.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Someone voted for "there is no in between".

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

I gave you an explanation.

I don't think I've made my point very well. Please see Post 21.
.

 

[Tehon]

Someone voted for "there is no in between".

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

I gave you an explanation.

I don't think I've made my point very well. Please see Post 21.
.

There is a distinction between socialist policies and Socialism. I thought your poll was directed at understanding Socialism. The opposite of Capitalism.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Socialism is the result of communism.

It is the government set up after the revolution, that comtrols and owns the means of production and all property. All individual property rights belong to government. All people become wards of the state.

It is the worst idea ever proposed or attempted.

 

[Mac1958]

Someone voted for "there is no in between".

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

I gave you an explanation.

I don't think I've made my point very well. Please see Post 21.
.

There is a distinction between socialist policies and Socialism. I thought your poll was directed at understanding Socialism. The opposite of Capitalism.

No, it's about the wide spectrum between the two, the shades of gray, that I've noticed many here don't appear to see.
.

 

[HaShev]

vs.
Capitalism click and order without getting up or out from your bed.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00032G1S0/?tag=ff0d01-20

 

[Tehon]

Someone voted for "there is no in between".

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

I gave you an explanation.

I don't think I've made my point very well. Please see Post 21.
.

There is a distinction between socialist policies and Socialism. I thought your poll was directed at understanding Socialism. The opposite of Capitalism.

No, it's about the wide spectrum between the two, the shades of gray, that I've noticed many here don't appear to see.
.

But the terms Socialism and Capitalism describe forms of production. Not social policies (or the absence of) undertaken by governments.

 

[Mac1958]

Someone voted for "there is no in between".

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

I gave you an explanation.

I don't think I've made my point very well. Please see Post 21.
.

There is a distinction between socialist policies and Socialism. I thought your poll was directed at understanding Socialism. The opposite of Capitalism.

No, it's about the wide spectrum between the two, the shades of gray, that I've noticed many here don't appear to see.
.

But the terms Socialism and Capitalism describe forms of production. Not social policies (or the absence of) undertaken by governments.

Okay, never mind.
.

 

[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.

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

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

There used to be one that was left alone almost entirely.

I'll throw the moonbats a bone and acknowledge the struggle for good conditions, better wages that "liberals" achieved in the 20's and 30's for most workers. Since then they've gone way far left and in some cases crippled cities like Baltimore. Regressives are the DNC now. There are no "liberals" who give a shit about 2A or private property rights. They've become devoted to an all powerful nanny state. We need to roll the bitch back, get her snootch sewn shut, a double mastectomy and some time away.

We had the most prosperity when government didn't regulate the fuck out of the economy. We haven't gone off the Venezuelan lemming cliff yet, but I see no benefit to doing anything that goes the same direction.

Trump, for all the circus act it is, has been undoing a lot of regressive harm. You have to realize DC has been a circus act or a pageant in some way all along right? Probably far longer than the civil war. Trump is just the best ring leader so far as entertainment goes.

 

[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.

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

I am an American. I think the US has historically come closest to the ideal for the greatest number of people. In large part due to a capitalist economy and a constitutional republic form of government. However, we are a large, diverse country. If you want to look at small, mostly homogenous countries with strict immigration policies where even the lower and middle income folks pay fairly high taxes, countries whose income is largely derived from petroleum products - then look to the Nordic model if you like.

The US is a nation of 300+ million people from a vast array of cultures and languages...living in vastly different regions of the country. Norway has little more than 5 million people, less than the population of NYC. We are both capitalist nations with a varying degree of 'mixed' economies where certain vital public works are managed/owned by the government.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Better question, why do we treat socialism and capitalism as the only choices on the menu?

 

[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?

I am an American. I think the US has historically come closest to the ideal for the greatest number of people. In large part due to a capitalist economy and a constitutional republic form of government. However, we are a large, diverse country. If you want to look at small, mostly homogenous countries with strict immigration policies where even the lower and middle income folks pay fairly high taxes, countries whose income is largely derived from petroleum products - then look to the Nordic model if you like.

The US is a nation of 300+ million people from a vast array of cultures and languages...living in vastly different regions of the country. Norway has little more than 5 million people, less than the population of NYC. We are both capitalist nations with a varying degree of 'mixed' economies where certain vital public works are managed/owned by the government.

That's cool. You are not opposed to regulated capitalism. We agree.

 

[Pete7469]

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?

I am an American. I think the US has historically come closest to the ideal for the greatest number of people. In large part due to a capitalist economy and a constitutional republic form of government. However, we are a large, diverse country. If you want to look at small, mostly homogenous countries with strict immigration policies where even the lower and middle income folks pay fairly high taxes, countries whose income is largely derived from petroleum products - then look to the Nordic model if you like.

The US is a nation of 300+ million people from a vast array of cultures and languages...living in vastly different regions of the country. Norway has little more than 5 million people, less than the population of NYC. We are both capitalist nations with a varying degree of 'mixed' economies where certain vital public works are managed/owned by the government.

I would guess people did not abuse the system at the rate our people do.

You can't give some people enough free shit.

 

[SeaGal]

That's cool. You are not opposed to regulated capitalism. We agree.

Ahhh...but the poison's in the dose. I wonder if we would agree on the dosage.

 

[SeaGal]

I would guess people did not abuse the system at the rate our people do.

You can't give some people enough free shit.

In a socialist country there is no such thing as a 'free lunch'...you wanna eat - ya gotta work - except those at the top. Recently read a tongue in cheek comment, can't remember where, remarking on the fact that the US is the first country in history where the 'leisure' class is at the bottom of the income ladder.

I think both sides of the argument misuse the term socialism. But imho, the Sanderites are the more ill informed.
Socialism is a harsh form of government, and rarely results in any widespread prosperity for the general populace. Our social programs are a natural outreach of a wealthy capitalist economy...we require little of the people receiving the benefits. It is a valid debate when discussing the sustainability of any welfare/social benefit system.

Social programs do not equate to socialism.

We are becoming less economically free though. The countries at the top of the list below have strong protections for property rights and rule of law...and judiciously applied government regulation of private business. Nobody rules with a pen and a phone.

Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom