|
|
I would post a reply except for that llamas are cute.
modified 25-Dec-19 11:46am.
|
|
|
|
|
Did you mean Alpaca? Alpaca are cuter than Llama! 
(Even though Llama have 2 Ls, which is always good)
|
|
|
|
|
Socialism have a lot to say about economy of course...
I wasn't aware that people talking about socialism that much... Probably not those were part of the failing attempt of materializing the ideas in a vacuum...
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
I would say socialism give you some suggestion what to do with some of the money.
Capitalism will tell you how to best get money.
Those are, in fact, complimentary!
I just saw a youtube post (or something) about those 2 together and I was reminded that I have the feeling the debate has been obscured by propaganda...
|
|
|
|
|
Socialism is all about how you deal with people, and capitalism is all about how you deal with money.
I don't give a toss about money, and I'm not that keen on spending too much of my own time on people, so I'm in favour of neither.
Politically, my only preference is along the lines of "Don't f***ing lie to me, you c***s!" -- as long as a politician is a reasonably decent, truthful person, I'll give him the trust he deserves, no matter his political persuasion.
... And the same goes for the lying f***ers who seem to have taken over most of the world's governments, over the last few years. They get absolutely the trust they deserve.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
The difference is not between socialism and capitalism; even the most capitalistic society has some socialist elements. The difference is between collectivism and individualism.
Not-so-benign examples of collectivist societies are communist (== international socialism), Nazi (== national socialism). More benign examples are nuclear families, communes (== the kibbutz) , etc.
A capitalistic society is an example of an individualist society.
IMO, collectivist societies are ideal for social insects, not so good for human beings. Most human beings are happier in a society that gives them room to be themselves.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, I feel that it comes down to scale. You can't run a small community (a family or commune) with capitalism. Nor can you run a large community (city, state, country) with communism.
|
|
|
|
|
I would say the reason they're pitted against each other boils down to different views on property rights.
Socialists are more likely to take Proudhon's views on property. Property is Liberty/Property is Theft, which leads to the notion of Personal Property vs. Private property. The latter, which socialists look to abolish.
Without private property, capitalism cannot operate, simply because there's no way to accumulate capital under such a model.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
 This^. Strictly speaking, socialism means common ownership of the means of production (capital). But to many people it now means a welfare state. The word "liberal" has also lost its original meaning and must now be prefaced by "classical" to recover it.
|
|
|
|
|
I was an anarchist for 26 years. Technically I still am although I'm post-anarchist these days, due to my foray into post structural philosophy plus a powerful essay written by Russell Means against marxism and other eurocentric ideologies (like anarchism) in north america.
I'm married to a card carrying commie but am not commie myself. However, I know what socialism means, I'd hope. 
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been an ancap for over 40 years, since reading (and meeting) Murray Rothbard, but am not "religious" about it. Russell Means' autobiography is a good read. Quite an interesting guy.
|
|
|
|
|
Apologies, but I've never understood how ancaps can square the circle of private property + social anarchism (which is one of the reasons why I'm an individualist (post)-anarchist as opposed to social anarchist)
I mean, I understand individualist capitalist anarchists, but ancaps are looking to build a social system out of it, and I just can't see how you have private property rights without a 3rd party authoritative institution to enforce them and resolve disputes - a state in all but name.
Just my $0.02. Not saying it's bunk. Saying I don't understand it.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
If I understand your point correctly, that's one reason why I'm not religious about it.
David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom and Morris & Linda Tannehill's The Market for Liberty are good descriptions of how it might work.
|
|
|
|
|
I can respect that. I have a few beliefs like that around scripture which is why I'm not religious about it, despite being endlessly fascinated with it. I love information transfer via mythos because of allegory which engages higher level pattern matching. =D, and Torah is as intricate and interlocking as anything I've ever encountered despite what people say (usually atheists about the OT). It doesn't have to be entirely coherent to me to be valuable, and I'm sure there are people out there who can make sense of the bits I cannot. I don't consider myself the smartest person in any given room. I know better. Heh.
Anyway, totally off topic, rambling but there it is.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
mmmmm.. interesting...
But.. it's communism that abolish private property, socialism, afaik is not against private property. The nuance seems lost on people...
Or, if I am mistaken too, I need to know the name of the philosophy that suggest to use some tax money for the common good...
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: But.. it's communism that abolish private property, socialism, afaik is not against private property.
I think you're thinking of Democratic socialism, which is more an effort to reform capitalism than it is socialism. It was created by socialists as a third way compromise which is why the naming confusion.
As I understand it socialism does seek to abolish private property. The differences between socialism and ccommunism is that communism is a subclass of socialism with the presence of a total welfare state. Edit: COMMUNISM not capitalism.
Lenin argued that the end result of socialism was always communism. I understand where he was coming from but I don't think I agree.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
well.. the problem here is, I believe, that many people, me amongst them, would claim to be socialist while also supporting private property right.
So, if we are not socialist, what are we?
To detail the kind of thought those people share (only in vague and general term, it's not a philosophical argument here, just trying to get better naming):
belief in private property, belief in the rule of law, (fuzzy) belief that the state should protect the weak from the strong, belief that taxation is acceptable (nay necessary), belief that taxation is not just for police force and military but also for public service, belief that the list of public service should be stretched as much as affordable including (but not necessarily limited to), roads - public health - education - welfare
so what are those named?
|
|
|
|
|
either liberal or democratic socialist.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Under capitalism the rich get powerful. Under socialism the powerful get rich and everybody else gets poorer.
I, for one, like Roman Numerals.
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion it is because most people have only vague ideas, at best, of what those terms actually mean. Currently, those whining against what they see as a socialist movement obviously don't know because what they whine about is NOT socialism. They then turn around and advocate socialist policies. I find it very amusing to see people advocate what they are whining about.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
This entire discussion is why I am glad I live in a republic that despises "democracy." I only hope the American people can hold on to it (Americans - name the source).
Now I know many of you are from all over the world, but as an American, I am appalled at the level of ignorance our government education system fosters. After reading all of the comments and the explanations of this and that, it still comes down to private property rights. Can a citizen keep the fruits of their labor? If I'm smarter than you, should I not benefit from my investment in my education, late nights and many failures, finally to make myself profitable?
No? The result is no one works: Soviet Union, old style China, possibly parts of new China, Venezuela, etc. The consequences are poverty. Many of you on CP are from Eastern Europe. You know what I am talking about.
Parse it any way you want. Take any smart ass shoveling these ideas, take away his income because the state deems it worthy to give to someone else, and that smart ass *will* *stop* *working*. It's been proven over and over again.
TANSTAFFL
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
I don;'t even see how your response relate to my question, haha!
Or maybe you took this opportunity to go on a tangent, yet related topic, perhaps?
|
|
|
|
|
Do not kid yourself. Socialism is about taking the money (Substitute for Goods and Services) from people that work hard and contribute to society and giving it to people to who don't. This is done via Taxation in the United States. e.g. Food Stamps and Welfare.
Having said that, there are many people physically and mentally incapable of working that really do need help. Those folks should be cared for. Unfortunately, they are far outnumbered by those that scam the system.
It is a difficult problem faced by all nations. Think Aesop's the Ants and the Grasshopper fable.
Socialism has failed as an economic structure, see the USSR.
Adam Smith - Supply and Demand. It's not just a suggestion or theory, it's the LAW.
|
|
|
|
|
Err... URSS is communism, not the same thing....
there are 2 words because.. there are 2 differents things
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
