Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

Because Capitalism is soooo much more efficient than socialism. While there are certain markets that are best administrated by the government, and while the government has to tax and regulate industries in such a way that negative and positive externalities are taken care of properly, private industries will always have a better motive than government to excel -> the profit motive.


Obviously, a lot of this depends on how you define socialism, as it's one of those words that really means about as much as fascist now in days.

Well, pure capitalism would destroy competition. You need anti trust system at the very least.

[Strife26]

Oops. I forgot that in my list of stuff a government is needed for.



And make sure that natural monopolies don't abuse their power and that unnatural monopolies don't form, as well as assorted anti-trust stuff.

[ChairmanPoo]

When you see how corporations work from the inside you realize to what extent they are beset by the same low-efficiency problems as state owned ones. Go down the line and you will find people that care less and less on the ammounts of company money that's throw at stuff. And I'm not talking about sweepers, but about people who are high enough to burn millions of dollars away on whims.

Now that I think about it, this whole subprime crisis BS started like this.

EDIT: and by the way, since this thread started on the subject of socialized healthcare, it's worth pointing out that in that particular case it's much more efficient than both free market, and social security-based systems (which are more efficient than free market themselves)

[scriver]

Obviously, a lot of this depends on how you define socialism, as it's one of those words that really means about as much as fascist now in days.

In your country, perhaps, but not in the rest of the world.

[Angel Of Death]

Alright, sorry to be off topic, but what exactly is Socialism? Is it like Communism?

Sorry, I'm a complete dumbarse when it comes to this stuff.

[Tellemurius]

Alright, sorry to be off topic, but what exactly is Socialism? Is it like Communism?

Sorry, I'm a complete dumbarse when it comes to this stuff.

Socialism is the betterment of a whole society while Communism is well, community. Both are technically welfare states but socialism allows more freedom than Communism.

[Vattic]

Tellemurius: I didn't know there was a complete, or even partial, definition of how a communist state should run nor that there has ever been a true communist state. I thought that the countries commonly called communist were, by their own claims, socialist states in the transition between capitalism and communism. I'm not sure communism implies less freedom.

[ChairmanPoo]

THere are plenty of definitions around. It's better to ask the specific meaning of each speaker.

Classic marxists, for instance, use the term to refer to a transitional society which would give way to communism, a bona fide classless society (which is more or less undefined)

In most European countries, by socialist, they usually refer to socialdemocratic parties of various varieties.

The original fascists regarded their ideology as "socialistic" insofar it geared all elements of society towards a national goal, set by the Leader.

[Tellemurius]

Tellemurius: I didn't know there was a complete, or even partial, definition of how a communist state should run nor that there has ever been a true communist state. I thought that the countries commonly called communist were, by their own claims, socialist states in the transition between capitalism and communism. I'm not sure communism implies less freedom.

There isn't much, technically its only a concept, true communism doesn't exist, i think the root word would have been a good example of what it is.

[Vattic]

Tellemurius: That's pretty much what I thought. It's always irritated me when people say that "communism works on paper but not in practice" yet the workings of communism were never really described beyond a set of ideals. I still don't see why communism implies less freedom than socialism especially given how ill-defined the former is.

ChairmanPoo: You've pretty much clarified what I already thought. Didn't the original fascists start out fairly left wing in their approach but showed their shift to the right in siding against the workers during strikes? Most fascists seem to at least garner appeal though appearing socialist. Even the British National Party are fairly left leaning (compared to the other parties) and pro community. This is part of the reason hard times gets them more votes.

In response to the OP: I think socialism is a necessary part of a properly functioning society but comes with it's own pitfalls like any other system.

[DJ]

We should cut funding for all pure science, like various math and physics departments on universities, because pure science doesn't do anything

Also, cut all public education. Did you know that there isn't a single public elementary school in USA that generates profit?

[Leafsnail]

ChairmanPoo: You've pretty much clarified what I already thought. Didn't the original fascists start out fairly left wing in their approach but showed their shift to the right in siding against the workers during strikes? Most fascists seem to at least garner appeal though appearing socialist. Even the British National Party are fairly left leaning (compared to the other parties) and pro community. This is part of the reason hard times gets them more votes.

It's more the blatant scapegoating of immigrants as the cause of all problems (which, sadly, seems to be creeping into mainstream politics here too) that wins them a few votes here and there (although it should be pointed out that their vote has completely collapsed recently, and that the Party is basically completely financially insolvent).

[scriver]

If I remember correctly, fascism was a very disorganised "belief" (couldn't remember a more proper word) in the beginning, including people from all over the political spectrum, but it changed over time as more and more people found themselves exluded from what made a "true" fascist. I know that at lest the Fascist Manifesto contained rather many sociqlistic and progressive opinions to ponder to the still strong communist/socialist fascist wing (I believe it was written somewhere around the 1910s, don't want to check it now as I'm phone browsing, but my point is that it was quite long before Mussolini). I also believe Mussolini even made laws for gender-equalizing the country right after he took over to calm the strong women's right movement that supported him, but I might be remembering that wrong, or it might be a myth.

Anyway, to the point: "Mussolini's" movement needed to weed out opposition within the fascist movement, so they needed to both limit what a true fascist could be and create an enemy for the people to rally against - making the commies and socialists the diametrical opposite of fascism would not whip up hatred against one of the bigger ideological contenders for power in Italy, it also meant people within the movement had to take sides, and dealt with the factions within the movement that might not support it. So fascism, over time, was streamlined into a strictly nationalistic conservative ideology opposed to the progressivists and socialists.

ChairmanPoo: You've pretty much clarified what I already thought. Didn't the original fascists start out fairly left wing in their approach but showed their shift to the right in siding against the workers during strikes? Most fascists seem to at least garner appeal though appearing socialist. Even the British National Party are fairly left leaning (compared to the other parties) and pro community. This is part of the reason hard times gets them more votes.

It's more the blatant scapegoating of immigrants as the cause of all problems (which, sadly, seems to be creeping into mainstream politics here too) that wins them a few votes here and there (although it should be pointed out that their vote has completely collapsed recently, and that the Party is basically completely financially insolvent).

And, unfortunately, we're repeating exactly what happened in Europe during the decades before WW2. Europe is conservating itself again, only this time, instead of putting the hate on socialists/left-wingers, jews, and Romani, we're turning against Arabs/Africans/muslims and Romani instead (or again, or still, for the Romani). This is honestly some of what scares me the most when it comes to the future.

Hopefully, it's just my youthdomly inexperience blowing it out of proportion. But it still scares me a lot.

[Kicior]

We should cut funding for all pure science, like various math and physics departments on universities, because pure science doesn't do anything

Also, cut all public education. Did you know that there isn't a single public elementary school in USA that generates profit?

IIRC  various practical applications for pure maths are sometimes found . I read something about it but I can't find it now. From what I remember it was something about prime numbers and cryptography.

Are there any public schools in the whole world that generate profit?

[DJ]

And space program has advanced the materials science by leaps and bounds. But hey, them rockets ain't nothing but a waste of taxpayer money!