The difference between socialism and capitalism in one photo

[PLC1]

This is really getting on my nerves...

You're a real stickler about pointing out that Socialism requires state or public ownership of the means of production and often correct people who to try to claim otherwise, yet you continually misuse the term Capitalism.

Capitalism requires 100% of all property to be privately owned, any system where the property is not 100% privately owned, cannot be considered Capitalist.

China did not adopt Capitalism, they moved away from Socialism by allowing some private ownership of the means of production. Their system is much closer to the Fascist model than Capitalism; mixed markets, private industry heavily regulated by the state, a progressive income tax, a massive and growing welfare state, one party elections... That's in stark contrast to the Capitalist model of free markets, 100% private ownership of all property, all regulation and power of the state is limited specifically to protecting against force and fraud, no tax on income or a flat tax, multiple parties can participate in elections, and no publicly funded welfare.

That description of China's economic system sounds a lot like that of the US, and, in fact, of every wealthy nation in the world. "Pure" capitalism has died out, along with "pure" socialism. Why do you think that is?

Socialism is what it is. The word is used to describe practically anything that the writer doesn't like, but it does have a specific meaning.

 

[Rick]

That description of China's economic system sounds a lot like that of the US, and, in fact, of every wealthy nation in the world. "Pure" capitalism has died out, along with "pure" socialism. Why do you think that is?

"Pure capitalism" has never existed anywhere.

 

[PLC1]

"Pure capitalism" has never existed anywhere.

Why do you think that is?

 

[Rick]

Why do you think that is?

Because too many people are too non-rational.

 

[PLC1]

Because too many people are too non-rational.

Is that the reason why pure Marxism has never been tried either?

Or, could there be yet another reason?

 

[GenSeneca]

That description of China's economic system sounds a lot like that of the US, and, in fact, of every wealthy nation in the world.

What's your point? I know you're not trying to say that America is a Capitalist nation because that's simply false. I was actually describing the Fascist economic model. You do know that the Fascist economic model was designed to be the "moderate" position between the "extremes" of Capitalism and Socialism, right?

"Pure" capitalism has died out, along with "pure" socialism. Why do you think that is?

Neither died because neither have existed. Why have they not existed? Because both systems require volitional consent and that's anti-thetical to the statist institutions of government.

That's not the answer you want to hear... You want to hear that neither have existed because they are impossible and can never work, but making such a claim would require that I believe statism is the only "pragmatic" form of government.

So how about it PLC, can a government exist that isn't statist? What kind of government system would that be?

Socialism is what it is.

Capitalism is what it is too: A social system based on individual rights where all property is privately owned.

The word is used to describe practically anything that the writer doesn't like, but it does have a specific meaning.

People like you use the word "Capitalism" to describe any system that isn't Socailist, which is why Capitalism has lost its actual meaning.

You go out of your way to point out that something isn't Socialist when it doesn't meet the definition only to then fallaciously claim that it must be somehow Capitalist... Even though it doesn't meet that definition either.

It's the false dilemma fallacy of thinking there are only two options and since it's not one, it must be the other. Perhaps you should look a little harder when telling someone that something isn't Socialist and find a definition that matches the system in question rather than simply calling it Capitalist.

 

[Rick]

Is that the reason why pure Marxism has never been tried either?

No - just the opposite.

 

[PLC1]

What's your point? I know you're not trying to say that America is a Capitalist nation because that's simply false. I was actually describing the Fascist economic model. You do know that the Fascist economic model was designed to be the "moderate" position between the "extremes" of Capitalism and Socialism, right?


Neither died because neither have existed. Why have they not existed? Because both systems require volitional consent and that's anti-thetical to the statist institutions of government.

That's not the answer you want to hear... You want to hear that neither have existed because they are impossible and can never work, but making such a claim would require that I believe statism is the only "pragmatic" form of government.

So how about it PLC, can a government exist that isn't statist? What kind of government system would that be?


Capitalism is what it is too: A social system based on individual rights where all property is privately owned.


People like you use the word "Capitalism" to describe any system that isn't Socailist, which is why Capitalism has lost its actual meaning.

You go out of your way to point out that something isn't Socialist when it doesn't meet the definition only to then fallaciously claim that it must be somehow Capitalist... Even though it doesn't meet that definition either.

It's the false dilemma fallacy of thinking there are only two options and since it's not one, it must be the other. Perhaps you should look a little harder when telling someone that something isn't Socialist and find a definition that matches the system in question rather than simply calling it Capitalist.

capitalism, actual definition:

cap·i·tal·ism
   [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

So, are you saying that the real definition of capitalism doesn't describe the system in North America, Western Europe, and the other wealthy lands of the world, or are you operating on some other definition of the word?

 

[Rick]

capitalism, actual definition:



So, are you saying that the real definition of capitalism doesn't describe the system in North America, Western Europe, and the other wealthy lands of the world, or are you operating on some other definition of the word?

What you've turned up sounds like the "college textbook" definition of capitalism, and it's simply false. Capitalism is what (theoretical) capitalists say it is, not what some liberal professor says it is.

 

[steveox]

socialism

capitalism

 

[PLC1]

What you've turned up sounds like the "college textbook" definition of capitalism, and it's simply false. Capitalism is what (theoretical) capitalists say it is, not what some liberal professor says it is.

Them there college profs can't teach us rednecks nothin', no siree. We know it all.

don't believe nothin' we read in no liberal college textbook, neither. Them there college guys is nothin' but a bunch of liberals. Better to stay away from them. That there book learnin' will mess your head up for shore.

 

[Rick]

Them there college profs can't teach us rednecks nothin', no siree. We know it all.

don't believe nothin' we read in no liberal college textbook, neither. Them there college guys is nothin' but a bunch of liberals. Better to stay away from them. That there book learnin' will mess your head up for shore.

I don't know where you got your silly-ass "definition" of capitalism, but any serious free market theoretician would laugh at it - and YOU.

 

[PLC1]

I don't know where you got your silly-ass "definition" of capitalism, but any serious free market theoretician would laugh at it - and YOU.

I got it from one of those silly ass dictionaries, you know, the books that we use to learn what words are actually supposed to mean..

not really a book any more, electronic dictionaries are much easier to use and a lot easier to find. You could try looking up a word or two yourself, you know, just to laugh over the silly ass definitions. You could start at the beginning: Oh, lookee here! Them libs what wrote this silly ass dictionary think there is a critter called an aardvark what has a long sticky tongue and eats ants! Bwa, ha, ha, libs will believe anything.

 

[Stalin]

So what is your point? That North Korea has serious infrastructure problems and relies on handouts and "friendship prices" to provide the bare minimum of "basics" to it's suffering populace?

Yes, I agree with that. Communism strikes again!

The economy of the puppet state of Occupied Korea ( usually referred to as South Korea ) was financed and built by US gifts and loans. 50,000 US troops still occupy the peninsula and, of course, there would be large amounts of atomic weapons held there. Needless to say, when Korea developed it's own atomic weapons, everybody jumped up and down about it, but no word about US atomics there.

Like Cuba, Korea has been subject to sanctions, more or less in accord with US policy of declaring economic warfare against those who do not go along with it's imperialist aims and ambitions.

Ironically, Korea is one of the few countries that is not engaging in an orgy of energy consumption and waste, such as street-lighting when no-one is using it, office blocks alight when no one is there or nenon signs advertising useless products.

Comrade Sta Lin

 

[Rick]

I got it from one of those silly ass dictionaries, you know, the books that we use to learn what words are actually supposed to mean.

Written by second-rank lexicographers who picked up the liberal "college textbook" definition. I would LOVE to see you read your merriam-webster "definition" at a symposium of free market economists and theoreticians - it would be called the entertainment phase of the seminar.