wing

[Pashalis]

The big thing about socialism (with the small "s"), is that it can represent any form of government. Socialism was created because of the suffering of the working classes during the industrial revolution. Communism took everything a step and a half further, instigating a corrupt, fanatical regime that encouraged people to rise up and destroy their own country.

~ Pashalis

[Juggernaut]

socialism can never represent liberalism, conservatism etc. what are you talking about?

[Lord_Davinator]

got a point unci...

btw whats the "wing" title got to do with socialism?

[KoalaBear33]

No socialism can't just be any form of government. The key thing with socialism is that social principles are valued more than anything else, and everything is done for the people as a whole. So things like training for unemployed, support for single parents, rights for workers and so on will be valued more than anything else.

Under capitalism for instance (capitalism is an economic system but I think it's fair to compare the two), what is valued is money. Also everything in capitalism is done for individuals as opposed to the community. This is why the govt will spend hundreads of millions of dollars supporting a sports team while people are still unemployed and suffering (this won't happen under socialism) (note: there are benefits to doing this but my point is that this is a individual decision as opposed to a social decision).

KoalaBear33

[Bereta_Eder]

Maybe Pashalis is using the term «socialism» to refer to the size of the social warfare?

I don't know just an idea.

[Kropotkin]

This is why the govt will spend hundreads of millions of dollars supporting a sports team while people are still unemployed and suffering (this won't happen under socialism)

There wasn't any unemployment in socialist countries. It's a capitalististic phenonomen remember, it can't happen in a socialist country, just like crime.

A bit more seriously; Ever heard of the the soviet hockeyteam (i could make a lot of more examples like Dynamo Berlin)?

Pashalis has a point in a rude form of way. Socialism is a pretty hard goverment to define. Not that others are very easy, but many forms of states, goverments and ideals have claimed the title of socialism. I wouldn't say that everything can be called socialism. However quite a few european states might be seen as socialistic from an american perspective and so forth. It's always a policial powercage to define socialism.

I'm not sure that pashalis have understood the historical defintion of socialism and communism however.

[JellyDonut]

Re: wing

Originally posted by Pashalis
Communism took everything a step and a half further, instigating a corrupt, fanatical regime that encouraged people to rise up and destroy their own country.

~ Pashalis

What are you talking about???

Even if you count all the countries that claim(ed) to be communist as communist, the "revolutions" were headed by small groups of people, a vanguard party if you will, i.e. the Bolsheviks, Mao's followers, etc. Of course these countries are corrput; they ignored Marx's basic principles. It only makes sense to call Marxism communism. Otherwise, I could pick up a cardboard box and say "this is a telephone" even though it's completely different from Alexander Graham Bell's invention.

[Juggernaut]

Originally posted by KoalaBear33
This is why the govt will spend hundreads of millions of dollars supporting a sports team while people are still unemployed and suffering (this won't happen under socialism).
KoalaBear33

what are you talking about? in capitalism the government don't take people's money and decide what do with them. this sound more like a socialist regim.

as far as the unemployment, socialism increases it, capitalism does not. in a market economy, it's much more easy to start your own business. and people will do so.

in planned economics (socialism) government decides if a new a company is needed. and lets people live through subsidies when the could have got a job if the company taxes weren't so high. mayeb not so highly paid, but atleast they're making society more efficient. under true capitalism, there's no unemployment. people, who can, have to work.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by uncle_funk
what are you talking about? in capitalism the government don't take people's money and decide what do with them. this sound more like a socialist regime.

Every government takes your money. They just have different ideas about what laws should be enforced, how much tax they should take and what it is most important to spend it on.

[Juggernaut]

yeah, but it's a enourmous difference between planned and market economics.

im my society (social liberalism), the government only takes money to give them to social welfare, land maintenance and law enforcements. everything else is pure theft in my eyes.

[KoalaBear33]

Originally posted by uncle_funk


what are you talking about? in capitalism the government don't take people's money and decide what do with them. this sound more like a socialist regim.

Every type of government has to take money from the people (except anarchy which doesn't have a government). Who pays for the policians, city planners, and so on? Under socialism, the money that is collected is spent on social programs first (or at least those are given higher priority), whereas under capitalism it is on projects that benefit capitalists.

The tax rates might differ but it is really questionable whether there is a REAL difference for a normal citizen. Under socialism you pay higher taxes but more things are "free", while under capitalism you pay lower taxes but less things are "free". Those that are upper middle class or higher will benefit from capitalism while those that are poor will benefit from socialism. The middle class should not notice a big difference under either system.

as far as the unemployment, socialism increases it, capitalism does not. in a market economy, it's much more easy to start your own business. and people will do so.

Just because you start your business doesn't mean that everyone will have a job. Most new businesses actually bankrupt in the first 2 years (I'm not saying this is undesirable; just saying that jobs are not dependent on it).

Personally, I don't think the type of system affects the number of jobs (ie. unemployment rate). Jobs are dependent on need and the capabilities of the population. What the different systems do is to vary the wealth distribution and income earned. Under capitalism money is "overvalued" so those that are rich accrue wealth at a faster rate than those that are poorer.

under true capitalism, there's no unemployment. people, who can, have to work.

Not true! The notion that employment is dependent on govt system is totally false. If what you are saying is true, then the US (as capitalist as you get right now) should have lower unemployment rate than Canada (more socialist oriented). While Canada does have a higher unemployment rate, it is very close to the US rate. This pretty much shows that the type of system has nothing to do with the unemployment rate. And I haven't even started talking about South American countries (for example) that are more capitalism oriented than Canada yet have significantly higher unemployment rate.

You will have high employment rate if a country has lots of resources or has manpower, and has a good political climate. The type of govt system does not matter apart from dictating the wealth distribution...

KoalaBear33

[KoalaBear33]

Originally posted by uncle_funk
im my society (social liberalism), the government only takes money to give them to social welfare, land maintenance and law enforcements. everything else is pure theft in my eyes.

How about when governments finance corporations? Bail out struggling corporations? Provide tax breaks? How do you view these activities?

KoalaBear33

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Under capitalism for instance (capitalism is an economic system but I think it's fair to compare the two)
KoalaBear33

Capitalism IS NOT a form of economy...it government, just like a republic or democracy.

Capitalism, in a quick sentence is step up from a republic, where there is one central government, and then states that rule themselves under the leadership of that one central government, and each state has its own representatives to both represent the state, and the people...alot like the U.S. government right now...except that the U.S. government has alot more power then it would under capitalism.

[Kropotkin]

Capitalism IS NOT a form of economy...it government, just like a republic or democracy.

I have to disagree. Capitalism is first and foremost an economic system. Although it has great impact on society and the government.

Many countries was more or less capitalistic and at the same time more or less autocratic during the 19th century. Hitlers Germany was pretty capitalistic for example.

There's no form of direct connection between capitalism and a central government with representatives.

[JMarks]

Capitalism and socialism (and fuedalism, etc) are economic and social values and beliefs. They can be set up in any form of government, though some would be harder than others.

Monarchy, Representative Parliments, etc are government FORMS. That is how the government is run. Albeit, Monarchies and despotisms tend to lean toward a fuedalistic society, and representative forms tend toward a freer capitalistic ideal.

But socialism is a wierd twist. Unfortunatly I have to take Fredrick Bastitate's position and say that it is basicly theft. You take from those who are well off, and give to those who aren't. Which of course brings us to a question, if your family was starving, would it be ok to steal a loaf of bread?

To all out there, please read Bastitate's 'The Law', you'll find it interesting.

Ioanes