Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

socialism, capitalism, anarchism- which do subscribe to?

Page 4 of 10 [ 157 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

which do you think is the better system/ which do you think should be in place?
socialism 32%  32%  [ 18 ]
capitalism 18%  18%  [ 10 ]
anarchism 30%  30%  [ 17 ]
other 20%  20%  [ 11 ]
Total votes : 56

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

19 Oct 2011, 12:28 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Oodain wrote:

not that is comunism (a comunal system where everyone owns everything)
socialism is where the state is used to take care of the social services of the population.

.


that is what is generally called a "mixed economy" The main activity of production is carried out by privately capitalized firms in a relatively unregulated market. Social services such as schools, roads, some infrastructure is done with tax payer money. Medical services could be either privately provided, provided by government (through an insurance scheme) or both.

As long as production is handled mostly privately you don't have a socialist economy at all.

ruveyn


socialism has never been about economy, comunism was.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

19 Oct 2011, 1:13 pm

NoPast wrote:
I don't know what to vote

I sympathize with left-anarchism(I call myself a Libertarian socialist) but I don't want mix my vote with "anarcho"-capitalist and volunteryst

Quote:
the basis of socialism lies in the maxim: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.


that is communism


no, it's socialism. this is the maxim of marxist socialism, or "the dictatorship of the proletariat", a transitory phase that marx deemed to be necessary during the transition to global communism.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


Last edited by peebo on 19 Oct 2011, 1:53 pm, edited 3 times in total.

peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

19 Oct 2011, 1:20 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Well, let's consider the Manifesto of the Communist Party. What are the reforms set out therein?

Abolition of real estate rights [emphasis added]
Progressive income taxation
Abolition of inheritance rights
Confiscation of all enemy properties
Nationalization of banking
State ownership of the media
State production planning
Equal obligation of all individuals to work.
Abolition of the distinction between town and country via state-mandated population distribution
Free education

Nowhere is the confiscation of personal property set out there. The abolition of neither equity nor debt investment is included in this list. The existence of private wealth is not foreclosed, but it is limited to personal property (in the common law sense, movable property in the civil law sense) and its use as a means of political control is vastly curtailed.


apart from the fact that you are contradicting yourself somewhat, if i am reading you correctly (and i may not be, please excuse me if this is the case)...


however the apparent fundamental error that you are making is that these ten planks as set out in the manifesto are in fact a temporary measure intended to aid the progression towards communism, wherein currency and the state no longer exist. this being noted, i think the proper interpretation of marx is crystal clear.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

19 Oct 2011, 1:49 pm

Oodain wrote:
free market socialism, read and be amazed, it actually works in a couple dozrn countries, some deemed better for buisness and with higher personal liberty than the us.

to say they are mutually exclusive would also mean that socialism would never be employed, in reality it will always be a mix.


free market socialism is a contradiction in terms. it can't exist. the use of the term socialism in the contemporary context is merely a euphemism for left-leaning capitalism. socialism requires the COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP of the MEANS OF PRODUCTION by the PROLETARIAT. as far as i am aware this has never been the case in any nation during recorded history, but most definitely not during the past few centuries.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

19 Oct 2011, 1:51 pm

double post, excuse me.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

19 Oct 2011, 1:56 pm

i think it should be clarified that the fundamental difference between socialism and communism is that communist society exists without currency or the state. some of you appear to be mixing these ideas up somewhat.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 Oct 2011, 2:28 pm

Oodain wrote:

socialism has never been about economy, comunism was.


Not so. Socialism is a system wherein the means of production are collectively owned.

The only private property will be personal property.

ruveyn



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

19 Oct 2011, 3:16 pm

the whole issue here for me is that people still think in absolutes, this discussion deals with none of that.

we can post different definitions of different takes on both systems,

in todays world we can call it left leaning capitalism or whatever floats ones boat.
i would call a society where health care, transport, education, social securities and similar are the primary concern for a socialistic society.

our current government is the socialist democratic party and associated minor parties.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

19 Oct 2011, 4:32 pm

Oodain,

q.v. my earlier post rearding angels and pinheads.


_________________
--James


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 Oct 2011, 5:07 pm

Oodain wrote:
the whole issue here for me is that people still think in absolutes, this discussion deals with none of that.

we can post different definitions of different takes on both systems,

in todays world we can call it left leaning capitalism or whatever floats ones boat.
i would call a society where health care, transport, education, social securities and similar are the primary concern for a socialistic society.

our current government is the socialist democratic party and associated minor parties.


The current descriptive term is "mixed economy" some elements of a generally free market, some regulation and some redistribution of income. But property rights are by and large left intact.

ruveyn



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

20 Oct 2011, 1:15 am

Oodain wrote:
the whole issue here for me is that people still think in absolutes, this discussion deals with none of that.

we can post different definitions of different takes on both systems,

in todays world we can call it left leaning capitalism or whatever floats ones boat.
i would call a society where health care, transport, education, social securities and similar are the primary concern for a socialistic society.

our current government is the socialist democratic party and associated minor parties.



but the point is, these things are, by definition, mutually exclusive. ruveyn is 100% correct in this instance. there is no nation on earth of which i am aware that is even working towards socialism. the term socialism has been completely bastardised in an effort to fit it within the totality of capitalism and create the appearance of choice in terms of political and economic organisation. take the labour party in the uk for instance. under no circumstances whatsoever could their policies be considered socialist. the popular contemporary definition of socialism bears no relation to the actual concept of socialism, and this is the source of the confusion.

read the chomksy article i linked to above for an erudite explanation of this fact.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

20 Oct 2011, 1:50 am

peebo wrote:
Oodain wrote:
the whole issue here for me is that people still think in absolutes, this discussion deals with none of that.

we can post different definitions of different takes on both systems,

in todays world we can call it left leaning capitalism or whatever floats ones boat.
i would call a society where health care, transport, education, social securities and similar are the primary concern for a socialistic society.

our current government is the socialist democratic party and associated minor parties.



but the point is, these things are, by definition, mutually exclusive. ruveyn is 100% correct in this instance. there is no nation on earth of which i am aware that is even working towards socialism. the term socialism has been completely bastardised in an effort to fit it within the totality of capitalism and create the appearance of choice in terms of political and economic organisation. take the labour party in the uk for instance. under no circumstances whatsoever could their policies be considered socialist. the popular contemporary definition of socialism bears no relation to the actual concept of socialism, and this is the source of the confusion.

read the chomksy article i linked to above for an erudite explanation of this fact.


words and in particular large concepts evolve over time with their use, no language in widespread use if fixed.

meanings and relations change, in the modern world there are plenty of flavours of socialism that has nothing to do with state ownership,
some even make it impossible for the state to own anything with all companies being owned by their employees, to everything in between.

you may call it an "original" or "actual" concept, but i repeat most will be a mix of ideologies, refer to visagrunts comment on angels and pinheads.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 Oct 2011, 9:24 am

In a Communist system the underpants you wear are The People's Underpants. In a Socialist system the underpants you wear are -your- underpants.

ruveyn



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

20 Oct 2011, 1:46 pm

Oodain wrote:
peebo wrote:
Oodain wrote:
the whole issue here for me is that people still think in absolutes, this discussion deals with none of that.

we can post different definitions of different takes on both systems,

in todays world we can call it left leaning capitalism or whatever floats ones boat.
i would call a society where health care, transport, education, social securities and similar are the primary concern for a socialistic society.

our current government is the socialist democratic party and associated minor parties.



but the point is, these things are, by definition, mutually exclusive. ruveyn is 100% correct in this instance. there is no nation on earth of which i am aware that is even working towards socialism. the term socialism has been completely bastardised in an effort to fit it within the totality of capitalism and create the appearance of choice in terms of political and economic organisation. take the labour party in the uk for instance. under no circumstances whatsoever could their policies be considered socialist. the popular contemporary definition of socialism bears no relation to the actual concept of socialism, and this is the source of the confusion.

read the chomksy article i linked to above for an erudite explanation of this fact.


words and in particular large concepts evolve over time with their use, no language in widespread use if fixed.

meanings and relations change, in the modern world there are plenty of flavours of socialism that has nothing to do with state ownership,
some even make it impossible for the state to own anything with all companies being owned by their employees, to everything in between.

you may call it an "original" or "actual" concept, but i repeat most will be a mix of ideologies, refer to visagrunts comment on angels and pinheads.


state ownership, as such, is not even a facet of socialism.

i am aware that language evolves, but the use of the term socialism hasn't evolved, rather, it has been recuperated wholesale by the capitalist totality.

i do get your point, but how far do we go, when over time every alternative system of organising society/politics/economy simply converge into the narrow paradigm of today and become nothing more than slightly different variants of the one hegemonic system, capitalism?

all of the existing political systems that exist today are not mixes of ideologies in any way, they are simply variations of capitalism.

again, i'll direct you towards the chomsky essay linked above.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

20 Oct 2011, 3:23 pm

i saved it to my "to read" bookmarks, will read it when i have better time.

i agree with the concepts of having homogenized our current state of politics, i think this is natural however as we learn that some things work where others dont.
the unfortunate side effect is that any alternatives will have a much harder time regardless of benefits.

i think today we should look at what the focus of a society is, i think the viability of any system has much more to do with the people involved than the systems themselves.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

20 Oct 2011, 3:28 pm

the main problem, though, is that as capitalism homogenises and recuperates every alternative ideology, we are simply left with a raft of variations on capitalism under different names. given that it's a distinct possibility that capitalism itself might be a very bad system of social organisation, this is hardly an ideal state of affairs, is it?


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith