Communism, Capitalism, or Socialism?

[amadeus]

Capitalism.

In a capitalist society, you're welcome to join a commune or income redistribution program of some kind.

In a socialist (or communist) society, you are coerced into having your money redistributed, whether or not you give consent.

 

[R.B.]

Yeah, so I'd have to share my hard-earned money with some alchoholic bum on the street?

 

[Samuelson]

No fair. I asked you first.


I would say that socialism is an economic system where the economy is partially controlled by the state. I realize this describes every economic system on the planet so in practice we define economies as socialist when they are controlled by the state more than in capitalistic countries and less than communistic countries.

But I counter-asked you first.

I would agree with this definition.

 

[Samuelson]

Capitalism.

In a capitalist society, you're welcome to join a commune or income redistribution program of some kind.

In a socialist (or communist) society, you are coerced into having your money redistributed, whether or not you give consent.

In a Socialism, the rich are the only ones who have to give a substantial amount of taxes, and they are so rich that taking money away from them would not take away from their quality of life.

 

[Samuelson]

Yeah, so I'd have to share my hard-earned money with some alchoholic bum on the street?

This is exactly the kind of Classist prejudice that prevents any kind of Progressive change. Obviously in a Socialism redistribution of wealth does not mean simply redistributing the money, but really taking money away from extremely rich to give to needy poor in methods that would prevent them from buying substances like achohol, such as food stamps.

 

[puglover]

Economic self-interest works best in the long-run. Capitalism all the way!

You seem to be ignoring the fact that in the early 1900s, all of America was a Capitalism and that is why their was so much poverty. Then in the 1930s with Roosevelts New Deal, the U.S. took a step towards Socialism and the country was brought out of depression and most of the poverty ended.

Wrong. WW2 brought us out of the Depression. The New Deal was not the cause of our economic prosperity.

 

[Samuelson]

Wrong. WW2 brought us out of the Depression. The New Deal was not the cause of our economic prosperity.

Actually it was really a combination of both, but the war caused deaths and costed money.

 

[R.B.]

This is exactly the kind of Classist prejudice that prevents any kind of Progressive change. Obviously in a Socialism redistribution of wealth does not mean simply redistributing the money, but really taking money away from extremely rich to give to needy poor in methods that would prevent them from buying substances like achohol, such as food stamps.

Explain me this, then: What if the rich complained? would the upper-middle class be taxed instead of them? Would the government of a place like the U.S. not need to be changed alot?

 

[Samuelson]

Economic self-interest works best in the long-run. Capitalism all the way!



Wrong. WW2 brought us out of the Depression. The New Deal was not the cause of our economic prosperity.

To add to my above comments, the economy started to get better and the poverty rate started to decrease after the New Deal and before WW2.

 

[Samuelson]

Explain me this, then: What if the rich complained? would the upper-middle class be taxed instead of them? Would the government of a place like the U.S. not need to be changed alot?

The rich obviously will complain, and they do it all of the time. However they have no basis to complain, as they have access to all the basic needs of life. You must remember, that taxing extremely rich people a certain amount would not decrease their quality of life because once you reach a certain limit of amount of money you have, increasing the amount of money you have will not do much to improve your quality of life.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Actually it was really a combination of both, but the war caused deaths and costed money.

So? The War provided employment for all Americans. Millions were in the military. Factories were busy producing war goods and the Allies were buying even more from us. New technology was being funded and developed at a break-neck speed. We even had to import workers from Mexico to provide labor for the war effort.

 

[puglover]

Actually it was really a combination of both, but the war caused deaths and costed money.

We aren't talking about deaths right now. This thread is about the economy, and the reason we rose out of the Depression was mostly the war-time industries and growth that began in our war factories. World War 2 far made up for its monetary costs in the development it gave our economy.

To add to my above comments, the economy started to get better and the poverty rate started to decrease after the New Deal and before WW2.

Sure, the economy grew slightly around the time of the New Deal, but it opened up a world of bureaucracy and socialism in the United States that today simply chokes the treasury without doing anything significant for the economy itself. Again, World War 2 gave us economic growth, not FDR's New Deal.

 

[Samuelson]

So? The War provided employment for all Americans. Millions were in the military. Factories were busy producing war goods and the Allies were buying even more from us. New technology was being funded and developed at a break-neck speed. We even had to import workers from Mexico to provide labor for the war effort.

This is true, but this was all funded on a massive war debt. It wasn't actually doing as much good for the economy as it seemed because so much of it was paid for by money that really wasn't their. Not only that, but as I stated previously, the economy started to do better and the poverty rate decreased after the New Deal and before WW2.

 

[Trajan12]

Socialism, but practically, capitalism implemented with many of the socialist principles. It sickens me to see what ridiculous things some people do with money while there are others that have none. People would complain about socialism? If I had my way these types of people wouldn't have ANY money.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

To add to my above comments, the economy started to get better and the poverty rate started to decrease after the New Deal and before WW2.

The economy also got a lot worse between the New Deal and WWII.

 

[puglover]

People would complain about socialism? If I had my way these types of people wouldn't have ANY money.

What about people who prefer to aid well-meaning charities instead of soul-less government paperwork?

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

This is true, but this was all funded on a massive war debt. It wasn't actually doing as much good for the economy as it seemed because so much of it was paid for by money that really wasn't their. Not only that, but as I stated previously, the economy started to do better and the poverty rate decreased after the New Deal and before WW2.

I can't wait until Jericho Hill gets here. He can explain economics much better than I can...

Basically the idea is that large amount of government spending improves the economy in times of recession. This just can't be sustained forever.

 

[R.B.]

Does Socialism have any values beyond the whole money deal that Capitalism dosn't?

 

[Samuelson]

We aren't talking about deaths right now. This thread is about the economy, and the reason we rose out of the Depression was mostly the war-time industries and growth that began in our war factories. World War 2 far made up for its monetary costs in the development it gave our economy.



Sure, the economy grew slightly around the time of the New Deal, but it opened up a world of bureaucracy and socialism in the United States that today simply chokes the treasury without doing anything significant for the economy itself.

I would have to disagree. It is not that the development in our economy and the monetary cost were independent, but actually the monetary cost (with loaned money that wasn't really their) caused the development of the economy. Not only that, but today Geoge Bush claims to be a great supporter of Capitalism and small government yet he has caused the greatest debt of any president in U.S. history. The debt today is not an effect of the New Deal or Socialism.

 

[Samuelson]

What about people who prefer to aid well-meaning charities instead of soul-less government paperwork?

This would be fine, except for the unfortunate fact that far too few people give money, and even then they give far too little.