Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Work w/ me on something, all you libs out there. As a die-hard conservative, if I had my druthers, I'd go back to a 19th century version of America, except that my version would be for everyone, not just white males. That means no social security, no medicare, no minimum wage, no war on drugs, etc.
But I have to admit even I have my moments of doubt as to whether wholesale jettisoning of the 'safety net' would work out. The libertarian answer is always 'private charity,' but there's always a question of whether that would pan out. Would voluntary charity be sufficient? Would we end up w/ orphans scrounging on the streets? I don't know.
What I do know is that socialism, defined as 'public (gov't) ownership of the means of production' does not pan out. Just look at the example of Amtrak. When created in the early 70's, it was supposed to become self-supporting in short order. A hand up, not a hand out. Forty years later that never happened. And it costs Amtrak 16 dollars to produce a cheesburger that sells for 9 dollars, and compares unfavorably to a Jumbo Jack w/cheese that goes for 2 dollars & change. Here's a great, brief essay by a writer named John Steele Gordon. I've posted it a few times before, and wish everyone would read it once. Why Government Can't Run a Business - WSJ.com
I challenge even die-hard liberals to read it and not admit there is truth in it.
So then, why couldn't we have a version of liberalism that keeps some degree of redistribution, but eliminates socialism, i.e. gov't run 'businesses' like Amtrak and PBS. And also things like Solyndra. Same deal with education. We pay top-tier price for our education system (2nd in the world in spending per student, behind only Switzerland) but get bottom-tier results. But while provision of education could be privatized, the redistributionist aspect could be kept intact--it's called vouchers.
Things like social security and food stamps could be retained. Or we could adopt Friedman's idea of negative income tax, which in a way, we have--it's called the child tax credit.
What do you think? Ditch the socialism, keep the redistributionism...yea or nay?
Work w/ me on something, all you libs out there. As a die-hard conservative, if I had my druthers, I'd go back to a 19th century version of America, except that my version would be for everyone, not just white males. That means no social security, no medicare, no minimum wage, no war on drugs, etc.
But I have to admit even I have my moments of doubt as to whether wholesale jettisoning of the 'safety net' would work out. The libertarian answer is always 'private charity,' but there's always a question of whether that would pan out. Would voluntary charity be sufficient? Would we end up w/ orphans scrounging on the streets? I don't know.
What I do know is that socialism, defined as 'public (gov't) ownership of the means of production' does not pan out. Just look at the example of Amtrak. When created in the early 70's, it was supposed to become self-supporting in short order. A hand up, not a hand out. Forty years later that never happened. And it costs Amtrak 16 dollars to produce a cheesburger that sells for 9 dollars, and compares unfavorably to a Jumbo Jack w/cheese that goes for 2 dollars & change. Here's a great, brief essay by a writer named John Steele Gordon. I've posted it a few times before, and wish everyone would read it once. Why Government Can't Run a Business - WSJ.com
I challenge even die-hard liberals to read it and not admit there is truth in it.
So then, why couldn't we have a version of liberalism that keeps some degree of redistribution, but eliminates socialism, i.e. gov't run 'businesses' like Amtrak and PBS. And also things like Solyndra. Same deal with education. We pay top-tier price for our education system (2nd in the world in spending per student, behind only Switzerland) but get bottom-tier results. But while provision of education could be privatized, the redistributionist aspect could be kept intact--it's called vouchers.
Things like social security and food stamps could be retained. Or we could adopt Friedman's idea of negative income tax, which in a way, we have--it's called the child tax credit.
What do you think? Ditch the socialism, keep the redistributionism...yea or nay?
Communism is when the government owns the means of production.
Socialism is when "the people" own the means of production.
Capitalism is when a private entity owns the means of production.
Communism is when the government owns the means of production.
Socialism is when "the people" own the means of production.
Capitalism is when a private entity owns the means of production.
No, communism is when there is no private property. The gov't (or 'people') owns both means of production (e.g. factories) and production (e.g. consumer goods).
Socialism is when the gov't (or 'people') owns the means of production, but privately owned goods & property are permitted.
No, communism is when there is no private property. The gov't (or 'people') owns both means of production (e.g. factories) and production (e.g. consumer goods).
Socialism is when the gov't (or 'people') owns the means of production, but privately owned goods & property are permitted.
Interesting that so many people who bandy about words such as 'communism' and 'socialism' don't actually know the difference between the two. Interesting, but not surprising.
The government saved domestic automobile companies. It also saved AIG. And so on. Now, if these private businesses were so super-duper good at what they did, why were they in the position of being saved by the government?
Interesting that so many people who bandy about words such as 'communism' and 'socialism' don't actually know the difference between the two. Interesting, but not surprising.
The government saved domestic automobile companies. It also saved AIG. And so on. Now, if these private businesses were so super-duper good at what they did, why were they in the position of being saved by the government?
It doesn't matter WHY they were in the position of being saved by the government...the point is, they WERE.
This just goes to show you the natural paradigm of political ideology. Either you let the market decide....or, you are simply feeding the cancer that is the state.
EDIT: The big issue here is that people are still looking at the political shift in the vacuum of the United States.....it has gone well beyond that scope now.
Communism is when the government owns the means of production.
Socialism is when "the people" own the means of production.
Capitalism is when a private entity owns the means of production.
Quote:
Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership,state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]
Government ownership ("state ownership") is one of the mechanisms of socialism, though not the only one. Communism then is a particular form of socialism.
" Socialism is the idea that the working class, the class that produces the profits, the wealth, the cars, houses, planes, steel, should take over and run things collectively, democratically, for the benefit of the majority (who also "just happen" to be workers too).
Communism is the idea that society should not have classes - exploiters and exploited, oppressors and oppressed, and so on. "
Socialism generally refers to an economic system, while communism refers to both an economic and political system.
Socialism seeks to manage the economy through deliberate and collective social control.
Communism seeks to manage both the economy and the society by ensuring that property is owned collectively, and that control over the distribution of property is centralized in order to achieve both classlessness and statelessness.
Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and services produced in an economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and planned by a centralized organization. Socialism says that the distribution should take place according to the amount of an individual's production efforts, whilst communism asserts that that goods and services should be distributed among the populace according to individuals' needs.
Additional Viewpoints from Contributors:
View 1
The meaning of the words 'socialism' and 'communism' have changed and grown over the years.
Most communists would say that communism is a form of socialism, or a progression from socialism, so we will start with that word.
At its heart, Socialism stands for a belief in government for the benefit of the whole of society. It stands, therefore, opposite Liberalism, which is a belief in government (or lack thereof) for the benefit of the individual.
One more article...I'm not really sure that there is an accepted distinction between the two. Communism is much more involved with the political system than "simple socialism" (for lack of a better descrition).
OP, interesting thread. I consider myself a hard-core proponent of laissez faire capitalism. However, today's modern "Corporitiam", with it's hand out for goverment favors, benefits and bailouts, is a far cry from true capitalism.
It doesn't matter WHY they were in the position of being saved by the government...the point is, they WERE.
This just goes to show you the natural paradigm of political ideology. Either you let the market decide....or, you are simply feeding the cancer that is the state.
EDIT: The big issue here is that people are still looking at the political shift in the vacuum of the United States.....it has gone well beyond that scope now.
A global state is a very real thing.
It most definitely matters "why they were in that position" if one is going to argue that private businessmen are better-equipped to run an economy.
I do agree that the market, in general, should decide, as it would hopefully weed out those in big business who have no idea what they're doing. However, how is that going to happen when so many large businesses rely on tax breaks, bailouts, and subsidies to remain afloat?
If we had a total market economy (meaning laissez faire), then nearly every big business would relocate to China, India, or Sri Lanka.
Interesting that so many people who bandy about words such as 'communism' and 'socialism' don't actually know the difference between the two. Interesting, but not surprising.
The government saved domestic automobile companies. It also saved AIG. And so on. Now, if these private businesses were so super-duper good at what they did, why were they in the position of being saved by the government?
Nobody ever said that all private businesses are "super-duper good." That's why they often go "out of business."
The difference is that if Jack in the Box makes a burger that costs $16 to produce, retails for $9, and tastes like $1, it will quickly go out of business. If Amtrak does that, and they did, they quickly go to the US Congress for more taxpayer money.
Work w/ me on something, all you libs out there. As a die-hard conservative, if I had my druthers, I'd go back to a 19th century version of America, except that my version would be for everyone, not just white males. That means no social security, no medicare, no minimum wage, no war on drugs, etc.
But I have to admit even I have my moments of doubt as to whether wholesale jettisoning of the 'safety net' would work out. The libertarian answer is always 'private charity,' but there's always a question of whether that would pan out. Would voluntary charity be sufficient? Would we end up w/ orphans scrounging on the streets? I don't know.
What I do know is that socialism, defined as 'public (gov't) ownership of the means of production' does not pan out. Just look at the example of Amtrak. When created in the early 70's, it was supposed to become self-supporting in short order. A hand up, not a hand out. Forty years later that never happened. And it costs Amtrak 16 dollars to produce a cheesburger that sells for 9 dollars, and compares unfavorably to a Jumbo Jack w/cheese that goes for 2 dollars & change. Here's a great, brief essay by a writer named John Steele Gordon. I've posted it a few times before, and wish everyone would read it once.
[URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277530070436823.html"]Why Government Can't Run a Business - WSJ.com[/URL]
I challenge even die-hard liberals to read it and not admit there is truth in it.
So then, why couldn't we have a version of liberalism that keeps some degree of redistribution, but eliminates socialism, i.e. gov't run 'businesses' like Amtrak and PBS. And also things like Solyndra. Same deal with education. We pay top-tier price for our education system (2nd in the world in spending per student, behind only Switzerland) but get bottom-tier results. But while provision of education could be privatized, the redistributionist aspect could be kept intact--it's called vouchers.
Things like social security and food stamps could be retained. Or we could adopt Friedman's idea of negative income tax, which in a way, we have--it's called the child tax credit.
What do you think? Ditch the socialism, keep the redistributionism...yea or nay?
Redistribution IS socialism. From them's that produce to them that stand around watching and salivating (when they are not snoring).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
