Nor is capitalism actually the synonymous with Free Market, though that term is constantly misused.
Capitalism is actually two things: A business model, and an investment model. It's got jack sh* to do with a Free Market economy except that in a Free Market, you are free to engage in Capitalism.
That is my personal axe to grind (on these forums). I hope everyone who reads this post is now better informed. The rest of this is about your statement that Communism is the opposite of
Capitalism free enterprise.
Left and right mean a lot, actually.
Left is social handouts, whilst right is social darwinism, for lack of a better explanation.
You're right about words still having meaning, in spite of whatever dilution may take place in national media discussions or other forums (non-internet usage of the word
forum).
A little too far with the Social Dwarwinism, though, Pathos. The concepts of personal freedom (including their employment in the realm of economics) are predicated on a Christian society and related outlook (I'm sorry if anyone wishes to dispute this, but it's not really disputable. This isn't a matter of vindicating Christianity, it's just a matter of historical fact. People's ways of thinking were radically altered by Protestant principles and teachings, which led them to develop these ideas of personal freedom and irrefutable rights). Social Darwinism is a later advent, and attempts to move the base for these rights onto the shoulders of scientific thought and an empirical paradigm. It concurrently removes several of these rights on the principle of renewing natural selection directly. It does however support the view of an
unregulated free market.
Bold = TL;DR
Also, there's no such thing as Communism nor Socialism. There's Authoritarian and Free Market. Communism and Socialism are good ideas on paper that don't and can't exist in reality because of the very nature of human beings. Communism can't exist because private property is seen by all humans as a basic right, wherever they may draw the line for it (You can be an idealist about it, but everyone draws the line somewhere because you have to. There's always something you are not willing to share and should not have to share, such as the rights to your own body and your spouse/mate's, or your right to eat what you grow if you wish to). Socialism doesn't exist because people won't work when they aren't earning anything. It's a basic principle that if you work, you eat. If you don't, you suffer. This is the same no matter what your paradigm, from Evolutionary-Empirical-Scientific to Monotheistic-Deistic-Theological.
The result of socialism is the same: 10% socialism causes a 3-10% breakdown in the basic motivating principles of economics like the "invisible hand" (a negligible tradeoff for the benefits of properly used taxes!), 40% causes a ~60%+ breakdown (depending on resource availability, economic strength, and societal norms), and somewhere between 60% and 80% totalitarianism becomes necessary to maintain the system (depending on the same factors).
This is why everyone with an education that doesn't have their hands in the unions' pockets (or other concerned political motivators) is so against this move toward socialism. We all know that our country is powerful and our citizens are wealthy and happy because of the effects of free market economics (what's left of them). The more an authoritarian being gets involved, the more stifled the market becomes. There are only two possible outcomes for moving the US into socialism: either we break down (economically speaking), or our government becomes something
never before seen (China, anyone?). The third possibility is of course that such a dynamic event will be avoided by reverting to the principles that worked in the past, and arguably are more likely to work now than things that didn't work in the past.
Author
Topic: Being "Reported" (Read 24280 times)