abacacus wrote:
Burzum wrote:
abacacus wrote:
Capitalism is a system where companies have control. Nothing is free for the public unless a company decides to make it so. Taxes, nonexistent.
Companies do not have control, nor do consumers. Prices are set according to supply and demand. And you're still referring to anarcho-capitalism. Read about, as an example,
state capitalism, and tell me if it is the same thing as what you are talking about.
abacacus wrote:
Socialism is the in between area, where pretty much all countries exist.
It depends on what definition of socialism you are going by. Marxian socialism is certainly not a middle ground.
Marxist Socialism is essentially Communism with a different name and a system of government.
I am not going to get into a debate here, but I will add my two cents. The way most people define things, the world is mostly capitalist with some social democracy. That is, the majority of the economy is privately owned (capitalism) and the government will provide some services (services).
Some states, such Scandinavia, have mixed economies that can't be called truly capitalist. These include state-owned enterprises and extensive public services. Some people (especially in North America) call these nations socialist, although I personally don't think they quite cut it--I refer to them as social democratic welfare states. Back before the Thatcher-Reagan era (which reached Scandinavia too) maybe, but not anymore.
Most socialist parties think of socialism as involving extensive public ownership, perhaps of all of the economy, and lots of public services. Those businesses which are not public owned will be regulated. In its more extreme form, socialism would mean that the entire economy is under democratic control, in the form of publicly owned enterprises, services, utilities and/or cooperatives. There are still plenty of socialist parties in Europe that subscribe to this view of socialism. I could list them, but really can't be bothered. Just look up the non-communist members of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left.
Socialism, by my definition, has never been achieved. I will address the Eastern block and USSR below. Sweden comes close, and I hope that Cuba might one day evolve into a democratic socialist state. But even the more moderate socialist parties (popular socialists, or democratic socialists) do not view even Scandinavia as socialist. They advocate become socialist by a series of gradual reforms.
Communism technically refers to a stateless, classless society (according to Marxism). It has never been achieved, and probably never will be. Communist parties (both the ones in dictatorships, and the rather pointless ones in capitalist or social democratic nations) actually start out by advocating socialism, with the understanding that they would then work towards Communism. They just tend to be especially aggressive about achieving socialism. Of course, you will see different people use different definitions, and these definitions have generally shifted to the right since the Fall of the Wall.
The other definition of Communism is a single-party state that imposes a horrible dictatorship on its people. Supposedly they were working in the people's interest, but there was little evidence of that. It bears little resemblance to what socialist (by my definition) or social democratic parties in the West advocate. I personally find this definition to be poor because it ignores the true Marxist definition. I tend to refer to these states as Soviet-style communist or Soviet-style dictatorships.
25 Jan 2012, 10:54 pm
