The difference between socialism and capitalism in one photo

[Gipper]

Communism is not synonymous with socialism. Your title is irrelevant to the picture.

All the references to Cuba, Soviet Russia, China and North Korea are not examples of socialism, but rather Communism and various forms (Maoism, Stalinism etc)

It's quite laughable, the majority of posts by Conservatives here are an attempt to link the word "socialism" with actual Communist (and formerly communist) nations. While at the same time they use the word to describe such things as universal health care, welfare etc. A more fitting comparison for you then would be the majority of Western European nations, and the majority of the developed and industrialized nations in the world for that matter (since socialized medicine an universal health care is implemented in every single developed nation in the world).

In any case, it's a classic example of word misuse in an attempt to mislead and over-simplify one's perspective of a complex issue.

Well, I guess socialism and communism have absolutely nothing in common.

 

[Pepper]

Most of Europe is socialist, but not communist, Rick.

 

[Rick]

Most of Europe is socialist, but not communist, Rick.

You are unschooled - I can't think of a single euro socialist country - they're social democracies. I suggest you read the definitions of the two systems.

 

[Pepper]

So you conflate socialism and communism, but you make a distinction between socialism and social democracy. I see.

 

[Rick]

In economic terms, yes. In terms of a social system, no... as I just pointed out.


I disagree. I see nothing abstract about Capitalism in regards to it being a social system. As for being an abstract idea where economic systems are concerned, Capitalism is not an economic system. Although the word Capitalism is often used in place of Free Market Economy, the two are separate concepts, Capitalism being the social system and a Free Market being the only economic system compatible with Capitalism. And there is nothing abstract about a Free Market Economy... A market can either be free, controlled, or mixed, and there is nothing abstract about any of those concepts, each has a pretty clear line of demarcation.

You misunderstand the "abstract" thing. When I say, eg, "triangle', in the context of euclidean geometry, I'm talking about an abstraction. Are there any actual triangles? (Definition: 3-sided polygon with all sides equal) No, although there clearly are excellent approximations. Likewise, "capitalism" is an abstraction that can't be PERFECTLY achieved in practice, but that it can't is of no consequence. Your characterization of capitalism as a social, as opposed to merely economic system, is something I've never heard elsewhere, and I've studied comparative economics at university.

 

[PLC1]

You are unschooled - I can't think of a single euro socialist country - they're social democracies. I suggest you read the definitions of the two systems.

Acording to Genseneca's definition above, all of them are socialistic, as is the US and, in fact, every modern nation on Earth.

According to the classic definition of socialism, none of them is, and socialism has all but died out in the world.

 

[Rick]

Acording to Genseneca's definition above, all of them are socialistic, as is the US and, in fact, every modern nation on Earth.

According to the classic definition of socialism, none of them is, and socialism has all but died out in the world.

The only socialist states have been one for one the marxist states. The eastern european systems diappeared. We still have north korea, cuba, vietnam and zimbabwe. Probably all states have "socialist elements" - eg in the US, government has an effective monopoly on the K12 education industry.

 

[PLC1]

The only socialist states have been one for one the marxist states. The eastern european systems diappeared. We still have north korea, cuba, vietnam and zimbabwe. Probably all states have "socialist elements" - eg in the US, government has an effective monopoly on the K12 education industry.

According to the classic definition, the only socialist states left are NK and Cuba, maybe Zimbabwe, I'm not sure. Venezuela seems ready to try it out. I wouldn't call Vietnam a socialist state.

I've taken the position that socialism has nearly died out before, only to be given a new definition of the term. Genseneca's link was the only one I've seen to indicate that there may be an alternate definition to the term that wasn't just made up.

 

[Rick]

According to the classic definition, the only socialist states left are NK and Cuba, maybe Zimbabwe, I'm not sure. Venezuela seems ready to try it out. I wouldn't call Vietnam a socialist state.

I've taken the position that socialism has nearly died out before, only to be given a new definition of the term. Genseneca's link was the only one I've seen to indicate that there may be an alternate definition to the term that wasn't just made up.

I stand partially corrected on the socialist republic of vietnam (official name). The communists rapidly collectivized agriculture and industry under government control when they took over, meeting the definition. However, perhaps with the PRC's example, they later allowed significant free market reforms in some areas. That there are very few nearly pure systems left shouldn't allow one to ignore that many countries, including the US, have socialist elements to one degree or another and the attendant problems.

 

[PLC1]

I stand partially corrected on the socialist republic of vietnam (official name). The communists rapidly collectivized agriculture and industry under government control when they took over, meeting the definition. However, perhaps with the PRC's example, they later allowed significant free market reforms in some areas. That there are very few nearly pure systems left shouldn't allow one to ignore that many countries, including the US, have socialist elements to one degree or another and the attendant problems.

The "pure systems", or nearly pure anyway, are NK and Cuba. No wonder pure systems are dying out. Socialism by that definition simply doesn't work.

However, by the other definition, it is difficult to see how a system in which private property and the distribution of income are not subject to some social control could possibly work. Off hand, I can't think of any example of such a system, can you?

 

[Rick]

The "pure systems", or nearly pure anyway, are NK and Cuba. No wonder pure systems are dying out. Socialism by that definition simply doesn't work.

However, by the other definition, it is difficult to see how a system in which private property and the distribution of income are not subject to some social control could possibly work. Off hand, I can't think of any example of such a system, can you?

There is no such system, because as I said before, there are no "pure systems", ie, those that perfectly implement economic system abstractions. But a FAR greater free market system is possible and desirable in the US. Government should shrink wayyyyyyyyyyy down.

 

[PLC1]

There is no such system, because as I said before, there are no "pure systems", ie, those that perfectly implement economic system abstractions. But a FAR greater free market system is possible and desirable in the US. Government should shrink wayyyyyyyyyyy down.

Are you sure?
What caused the housing crash? Could a more effective regulatory system have prevented it?

 

[Rick]

Are you sure?
What caused the housing crash? Could a more effective regulatory system have prevented it?

The community reinvestment act, and harmfully low interest rates by the Fed - both representing meddling in markets (this time with disastrous results) which otherwise would be self-correcting.

 

[Pepper]

The Community Reinvestment Act did not cause the housing market collapse.

Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we’re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act — a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.

More at the link.

http://www.businessweek.com/investi...t_had_nothing_to_do_with_subprime_crisis.html

 

[PLC1]

The community reinvestment act, and harmfully low interest rates by the Fed - both representing meddling in markets (this time with disastrous results) which otherwise would be self-correcting.

The Community Reinvestment Act simply put an end to "redlining."

"Harmfully low interest rates?" I think you'd be hard put to show that low interest rates are a problem.

Now, being able to buy a house that you can't really afford via "creative" financing, and the bank being able to sell said loan as a secure mortgage may have had a little bit to do with the soaring cost of real estate and subsequent crash.

So, whose fault was it that loans that were not ever going to be paid were sold as secure paper?

The sellers (who were giving the public what it wanted,)
the buyers (who saw an opportunity to make money),
The government (that didn't regulate the market and prevent entities and individuals from gambling with other people's money?
Who?