Capitalism or Socialism choose a side and state your point

[Assassin Xaero]

Anarchy.

I mean, it's going to happen eventually.
Probably after the bombs go off.

Might as well get a head start.

Sorry to disappoint you, but true anarchy, like true communism and possibly true democracy will never happen... If the world does fall into anarchy, you will get people that will go "Oh, I'm an anarchist and I have these ideas, follow me!", then there won't be anarchy anymore. If that does or doesn't happen, eventually leaders will start to arise... True communism (Marxism) would never work due to human greed, but I still think it would be the best out of anything... True democracy, every single person in the community would need to vote on every single thing... that would just get annoying...

 

[bodyklok]

I'm a capitalist, but I believe in things like welfare for the old and infirm.

 

[ElephantGuts]

Socialism, if there is a competent leader (AKA me) to make it work.

Though of course the truly best choice would be an intelligent combination of both. I just sided with socialism to not sound so bland. Though capitalism has clearly worked out a lot better, I think in theory atleast socialism makes for a simpler, more peaceful society.

 

[Mray3460]

Progressivism, I.E., whatever keeps things moving forward, and the budget balanced (Basically, Government control of certain substances that would detract from money better spent in a productive manner [cannabis, poppys, LSD, tobacco, and alchohol{although I'll admit that that last one never did and never will work in the U.S.}], a flat rate income tax, large investments in education [to help people make smarter decisions down the line], and anything else that can further the advancement of society as a whole). My problem with socialism is that there aren't enough incentives to advance or overproduce, people with great talent or ability end up not trying as hard as they can, because they can simply take the easy route and live off the government (unemployment benifit is the worst). My problem with capitalism is that it allows people to F*** everyone else over, including future generations, not just themselves. What we need is to find a balance between the two. An old mentor of mine put it best:

"Give a dog enough of a leash to either choke himself, or make himself prosperous, but never give him enough to choke other dogs."

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Capitalism, if Capitalism means a free market and private ownership of the means of production. The free market is always beneficial because it's always voluntary. Only a free market can solve the problems of pollution, corporatism, and cartelization (monopolization, basically) which are enabled by government and centralization.

Free people shouldn't have to put up with this crap.

EDIT: The societal harm associated with the free market is caused by protectionism (or mercantilism, or whichever term). It is very common to associate free market advocates with corporate apologists, especially among corporate apologists, but I think this is inaccurate. If the government is making it possible for 'big business' to exploit, then it is not a free market.

 

[CIA]

Barter System. Its a lot cooler.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Why not both? We've seen that it works.

 

[Skeleon]

Capitalism is generally working better. A free market is more powerful.
However, pure capitalism quickly descends into exploitation.
So we need to include social aspects to prevent cartels, protect the workers, provide education, healthcare and retirement pay.
I'll give my vote to capitalism; but the truth is that neither work on their own/in their extreme forms.

 

[Sark]

Socialism doesn't try to make everyone equal. Socialism believes in giving everyone a fair chance at success. Ideas such as security benifits and unemployment benefits (the dole) are socialist by nature. Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive.

 

[ReincarnatedFTP]

Mix of socialism and capitalism.
I like the way Scandinavia runs things.
The unregulated free market and communism will both kill you in a heartbeat.
Now if we could suspend human nature, probably free market anarchism.

And socialism is not communism.In fact,the way I've seen American conservatives talk about it lately, they might as well label the police and fire departments socialist.So hey a truly capitalist society you would hire private security forces other wise it's communism durr hurr hurr amirite?

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

Anarchy.

I mean, it's going to happen eventually.
Probably after the bombs go off.

Might as well get a head start.

Sorry to disappoint you, but true anarchy, like true communism and possibly true democracy will never happen... If the world does fall into anarchy, you will get people that will go "Oh, I'm an anarchist and I have these ideas, follow me!", then there won't be anarchy anymore. If that does or doesn't happen, eventually leaders will start to arise... True communism (Marxism) would never work due to human greed, but I still think it would be the best out of anything... True democracy, every single person in the community would need to vote on every single thing... that would just get annoying...

What about a Republic?

all three of the major economic philosophies(communism, capitalism, socialism) are good on paper. but communism places to much power in to few hands and they inevitably corrupt. Capitalism is a great system if everyone wasn't a prick, but when people eventually claw their way up to the top they take the opportunity to shit on everyone below them. socialism is great if you don't care about being incredibly rich, the obvious flaw being there are a lot of people who believe they can make lots of money, and in socialism it's not possible to become anywhere near what americans call rich(bill gates, movie stars, athletes).

I personally prefer socialism but that's me. however if you think communism or a fully free market is the best, your retarded. They've both been proven not to work and you should be ashamed of your stupidity.

and yes that means all that's left besides socialism is a regulated capitalist system, it's what the US has now, so if you like that that's what you should be rooting for, not a free market capitalism.

So I know that Russia proved the communism can't work...when did capitalism get proven not to work?

not capitalism, free market capitalism, where the market basically has no regulation. Look up the gilded age to see what I'm talking about, it's worse greed than any you've ever seen.

Okay, I just got a crash course in the Gilded Age and it seems to me that's exactly what I want. The thing is, most people aren't patient enough to allow capitalism to work itself out. Here's what I mean:

Capitalism(specifically, free market capitalism) is a force of nature. It works exactly like the seasons of the year. There is a winter where things die(which is where we get recessions and depressions), there's a spring where there's new growth and prosperity, there's summer with decadence and opulence, and there's a fall with crashes and things going into hibernation.

The Gilded Age would have worked itself out. Old money would have fallen and died in winter and new money would rise in spring and summer. Then, corrupt money would have died off in fall and winter and the cycle would repeat. In free market capitalism, it will take care of itself you just have to give it enough time.

 

[thiosk]

Progressivism, I.E., whatever keeps things moving forward, and the budget balanced

This is what the Progressives say they are all about, but how do you define forward? Abortion on demand for anyone who wants it whenever they want? Sex changes for toddlers? Suicide booths in central park? Organ harvesting from the disenfranchised? (We shall enfranchise parts of them, eh comrades? eh?) And balancing budgets is the last thing on the Progressive agenda. Not really on the agenda.

(Basically, Government control of certain substances that would detract from money better spent in a productive manner [cannabis, poppys, LSD, tobacco, and alchohol{although I'll admit that that last one never did and never will work in the U.S.}],

The government should not be choosing how people spend their money. If they do, its not your money, its the government's. And I cry bullshit for that. Prohibition of substances has a much longer track record of abject failure than alcohol prohibition alone. Soon, we will see mexico decriminalize, many US states are decriminalizing... give it time and the prisons will be emptied of nonviolent drug offenders. Now that would be change I can believe in.

a flat rate income tax,

Grossly benefits the wealthy. I support it because my family is wealthy enough that a flat tax would grossly benefit me. Once grad school is over, I will probably bring in enough money that a flat tax would make me really happy. America has among the most progressive tax rates in the world.

large investments in education [to help people make smarter decisions down the line]

The US has thrown gobs of money at education since well before the clinton era, and the entire system has gone down the tubes. Simply throwing money at 'education' doesn't make people smarter. Especially when most of that money goes to administrators. We can say that "well someone good needs to be put in charge of the department of education" but since that department was created, the quality of american education has gone through the floor.

 

[Mray3460]

I don't see why it has to be either one. Both have good ideas. They say that nationalizing health care is a socialist move, but it's good to have health people, even if they can't afford to be.

The problem with nationalized, universal healthcare (at least for me) is that it'll accelerate the growth of a serious problem already present in industrialized nations. namely "Speciel Weakness" (sometimes called "Special Weakness"). The growing rates of cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, obesity, weak immune systems, allergies, birth defects, and innumerable other diseases is no coincidence, and it doesn't just link to our food and exercise habits. As our healthcare has advanced, so has our ability to survive. While this may sound good on the surface (and it generally is), over time, people that would NEVER survive in the wild now live as long, or longer, than people who are naturally healthy, and generally pass on their genes accordingly. This means that each generation is progressivly weaker than the last.

Universal healthcare, by extending healthcare to millions more people, would be like throwing an enourmous amount of wood on a fire in an attempt to put it out (temporarily covering up the problem, instead of solving it, but making it worse in the end).

The only way I would vote for national healthcare is if it included a "Eugenics" (Selective breeding of humans) clause, meaning that people that can genetically pass on their diseases to the next generation would not be allowed to (or be discouraged from) breeding. This would make the system serve as an investment in the future, instead of as hort-sighted action for the "here and now." As time went on, and artificial selection took the place of natural selection, fewer and fewer people would get sick and, eventually, the "healthcare crisis," as we know it, would be over for good.

 

[Dys]

Well, at the present time (when we have a race of robot slaves communism is going to be the shiz) I'd have to say there's this fantastic concept of compromize, you could have minor elements of both to find a workable middle ground. Stop me if I'm going to fast. Also this has been done to death.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Socialism isn't communism, learn your terms.

I'd prefer an actual capitalist system, not one that's supported by socialism. Both systems have their benefits, and while socialism does help protect you when you need a bit of support, buffering capitalist systems by socialist means is counterproductive.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

I don't see why it has to be either one. Both have good ideas. They say that nationalizing health care is a socialist move, but it's good to have health people, even if they can't afford to be.

The problem with nationalized, universal healthcare (at least for me) is that it'll accelerate the growth of a serious problem already present in industrialized nations. namely "Speciel Weakness" (sometimes called "Special Weakness"). The growing rates of cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, obesity, weak immune systems, allergies, birth defects, and innumerable other diseases is no coincidence, and it doesn't just link to our food and exercise habits. As our healthcare has advanced, so has our ability to survive. While this may sound good on the surface (and it generally is), over time, people that would NEVER survive in the wild now live as long, or longer, than people who are naturally healthy, and generally pass on their genes accordingly. This means that each generation is progressivly weaker than the last.

Universal healthcare, by extending healthcare to millions more people, would be like throwing an enourmous amount of wood on a fire in an attempt to put it out (temporarily covering up the problem, instead of solving it, but making it worse in the end).

The only way I would vote for national healthcare is if it included a "Eugenics" (Selective breeding of humans) clause, meaning that people that can genetically pass on their diseases to the next generation would not be allowed to (or be discouraged from) breeding. This would make the system serve as an investment in the future, instead of as hort-sighted action for the "here and now." As time went on, and artificial selection took the place of natural selection, fewer and fewer people would get sick and, eventually, the "healthcare crisis," as we know it, would be over for good.

While I don't disagree with a single thing you've stated as a matter of fact, I could never vote for a Eugenics system of any kind. I don't support socialized health care for some of the very reasons you talk about and could never support a government that controls the reproductive abilities of the populace.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Anarchy.

I mean, it's going to happen eventually.
Probably after the bombs go off.

Might as well get a head start.

Sorry to disappoint you, but true anarchy, like true communism and possibly true democracy will never happen... If the world does fall into anarchy, you will get people that will go "Oh, I'm an anarchist and I have these ideas, follow me!", then there won't be anarchy anymore. If that does or doesn't happen, eventually leaders will start to arise... True communism (Marxism) would never work due to human greed, but I still think it would be the best out of anything... True democracy, every single person in the community would need to vote on every single thing... that would just get annoying...

What about a Republic?

all three of the major economic philosophies(communism, capitalism, socialism) are good on paper. but communism places to much power in to few hands and they inevitably corrupt. Capitalism is a great system if everyone wasn't a prick, but when people eventually claw their way up to the top they take the opportunity to shit on everyone below them. socialism is great if you don't care about being incredibly rich, the obvious flaw being there are a lot of people who believe they can make lots of money, and in socialism it's not possible to become anywhere near what americans call rich(bill gates, movie stars, athletes).

I personally prefer socialism but that's me. however if you think communism or a fully free market is the best, your retarded. They've both been proven not to work and you should be ashamed of your stupidity.

and yes that means all that's left besides socialism is a regulated capitalist system, it's what the US has now, so if you like that that's what you should be rooting for, not a free market capitalism.

So I know that Russia proved the communism can't work...when did capitalism get proven not to work?

not capitalism, free market capitalism, where the market basically has no regulation. Look up the gilded age to see what I'm talking about, it's worse greed than any you've ever seen.

Okay, I just got a crash course in the Gilded Age and it seems to me that's exactly what I want. The thing is, most people aren't patient enough to allow capitalism to work itself out. Here's what I mean:

Capitalism(specifically, free market capitalism) is a force of nature. It works exactly like the seasons of the year. There is a winter where things die(which is where we get recessions and depressions), there's a spring where there's new growth and prosperity, there's summer with decadence and opulence, and there's a fall with crashes and things going into hibernation.

The Gilded Age would have worked itself out. Old money would have fallen and died in winter and new money would rise in spring and summer. Then, corrupt money would have died off in fall and winter and the cycle would repeat. In free market capitalism, it will take care of itself you just have to give it enough time.

The old boom-and-bust is caused by aberrations in the market, such as when people make inadvisable investments based on bad information. This causes capital to be invested where it will not produce, and therefore will bust. In a free market, this will be possible as long as people are stupid, but the single greatest cause of capital invested where it will not produce is state regulation. The whole point of regulation is to create incentives to invest capital where people already believe it will not produce. The effect is to incentivise investments perceived to be poor. The urge to reduce risk and maximize profit minimizes the boom/bust while state regulation accelerates it.

EDIT: And while I'm at it, the Gilded Age was the age of Protectionism. It's about as far from a free market (the sum of voluntary human action) as one could get. It's more like the ultimate refutation of the free market.

 

[Skeleon]

*snip*

This is utter bull.

People who are prone to cancer because of family burden usually still get to have children (at around 20-40 yo) before it breaks out (around 50-70). There are a few people who have extremely high risks because of specific genetic mutations (HNPCC, FAP and the like) but those get special treatment and counselling. Also, they're the absolute minority of cancer cases. Most occurences of cancer are spontaneous.
So the increased healthcare has no influence on the proneness of cancer in our society.

In fact, people simply died before having the chance to get cancer before. The lifespans were 30-50ish, so you basically grew up, worked, made a "few" (around 12) kids, hoped a third of them survived and then died.

However, your view on Eugenics makes it obvious to me that argueing with you is probably like pouring gasoline on a pyre (yes, I copied your metaphor).

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

The old boom-and-bust is caused by aberrations in the market, such as when people make inadvisable investments based on bad information. This causes capital to be invested where it will not produce, and therefore will bust. In a free market, this will be possible as long as people are stupid, but the single greatest cause of capital invested where it will not produce is state regulation.

This is where you lost me. Now, I may be ridiculously stupid, don't rule it out, but why would the government have a better understanding of where to invest if the government is run by the same stupid people that make stupid investments? Moreover, wouldn't it be more likely for bad investments to happen with politicians who don't naturally care about the benefit of the country or the people, but for their own personal gain? Wouldn't they just invest money in people who are likely to return their favor with campaign contributions?

Edit:

[cheer]Post 100![/cheer]