|
Capitalism is an economic system. Socialism is a political system.
They are not mutually exclusive...in the short run.
In the long run, not so much.
Communism is the ultimate end-point of socialism, if people decide they want to keep the Socialist system going. It embodies both the economic and political. (Countries are too large to effectively leave the "means of production" in the hands of the workers. On a small scale, it should work just fine.)
Yeah, this is a simplistic explanation. Lounge post, not Masters thesis.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually Capitalism is a political system.
Traditionally the word has been used to refer to transactions based on the Right of Property.
It can be (and has been) generalised into a structure of non-contradicting Rights, which guarantee freedoms of action to individuals.
The closest approach to a Capitalist state was the (constitutional) USA.
|
|
|
|
|
And Joe,
You're NOT drunk.
|
|
|
|
|
Your use of past tense for the Constitutional USA is appropriate, unfortunately.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
if(Discussion.ContainsBitwise(DiscussionTypes.Political | Disucssion.Types.Ideological)
{
Discussion.Move(CP.Forums.SoapBox);
return;
}
Google CEO, Erich Schmidt: "I keep asking for a product called Serendipity. This product would have access to everything ever written or recorded, know everything the user ever worked on and saved to his or her personal hard drive, and know a whole lot about the user's tastes, friends and predilections." 2004, USA Today interview
|
|
|
|
|
Obligatory style pedantry:
MoveResult result = default(MoveResult);
if ((Discussion.Type & (DiscussionTypes.Political | DiscussionTypes.Ideological)) != 0)
{
result = Discussion.Move(CP.Forums.SoapBox);
}
return result;
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Line 4 is wrong:
return Quickly;
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: May people say (to summarize) "capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable economic system"
Let say I kind of agree with that statement.
Which is, of course, incomplete as well as incorrect. Which form of capitalism are we talking about? The anglosaxon version, the so-called Reaganomics? Or the Rheinlandic model of capitalism?
..and what did we have "before" capitalism? 
Super Lloyd wrote: This "pro capitalist" people seems to think that capitalism is anarchy.
The anglo-saxon form of capitalism resembles indeed anarchy. It's the "right of the strongest", with the amount of capital determining relative strength.
Super Lloyd wrote: Speaking of which is there a name for the political system favouring the rule of law
You're mixing politics and economics. I'd say democracy might work, but only if the voters can make an informed decision (not just a vote for popularity)
Law itself is always just the list of rules that the ruling group defines. Paper is patient, and laws did not help prevent a financial melt-down.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Law itself is always just the list of rules that the ruling group defines. Paper is patient, and laws did not help prevent a financial melt-down.
The rule of laws as opposed to the whim of the powerful.
England is a Monarchy, yet the queen can't detain someone for no reason on a whim.
On the other hand they do it in the US (detain people on a whim) so they have definitely left the rule of law and started to slide into (slight) dictatorship! 
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: The rule of laws as opposed to the whim of the powerful.
The laws are usually dictated by the powerfull.
Super Lloyd wrote: England is a Monarchy, yet the queen can't detain someone for no reason on a whim.
It's not exactly a monarchy any more. And I'd point to corporations being "the powerfull" these days.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't it a fallacy to claim that small government and anarchy are the same thing?
|
|
|
|
|
Franc Morales wrote: Isn't it a fallacy to claim that small government and anarchy are the same thing?
According to Merriam-Webster online[^] anarchy is the extreme version of "small government":
1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured="" plots="" but="" a="" wild="" anarchy="" of="" nature="" —="" israel="" shenker="">
|
|
|
|
|
I'm afraid "absence" and "small" are not synonyms.
|
|
|
|
|
The economic model and the political model and the labels they are given are irrelevant. In any system, you will find people that abuse it, and until we, as humanity, mature enough to stop being abusive, all of those systems will eventually degrade into corruption, regardless of how many checks and balances (laws, etc) are put into place, which merely leads to the second condition of a degraded model, that being over-complexity.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Sadly, I have to agree. I hardly think that most political systems are by intent, designed to hurt people or prevent people from being successful. It is the despots, the greedy and the selfish who ruin it for everyone else.
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
I think I agree with the degradation...
Follow by a painful readjustment phase...
We can see it in effect in the US already from manufacturing and science super power in the beginning of the century to over indebted, aging infrastructure, weakened economy now...
Thankfully we got global competition and awareness now to speed up things. I just hope a renewal will come without war and not too painfully...
|
|
|
|
|
Your love for law seem rather strange and displaced judging by your inability to follow one simple rule of this board and then you dare to judge other's people opinions. 
|
|
|
|
|
You might enjoy Charles Dicken's endictment of the flow of time T0 through T10000 entitled "Great Expectations".
I'll certainly take exception to the term "fallacy" too while I'm on point. Except for this satirically subjective slant on communism you provide in it's primitive clay state, not yet seen through the plastic bag in which you've exposed it in the box, it smells like clay, yes. Not capitalism, right. And THAT doesn't smell like clay.
So here's the problem. I've got to click on this link. And I'm not going to do that. Because I think you're drunk. But I do think some bug has crawled up your yinyang and you're hopping mad about it. So, Pip, this is a morality play. The whole big life thing.
Spoiler alert: the guy who asked you for the file is your father!
|
|
|
|
|
The most successful system is the one where corruption has the least effect, because the one thing you will never get rid of is corruption.
And note that it's not bad people who are corrupt, most of the time; it's normal people, behaving like humans.
Communism and socialism try to minimise the effect by getting everyone to work toward a greater good (but the greater good will always be perverted by corruption, so it's tough to make it work).
Capitalism tries to minimise the effect by taking a lot of what other systems would call corruption, and making them the norm (but no matter how "corrupt" you allow people to be, they will always push the envelope until the balloon bursts).
The solution
There ain't one.
Corruption will eventually destroy any system, so the trick is to quit when it becomes obvious that the system is going to fail, and follow one of the other systems for a while.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with capitalism is that it is dependent upon consumption.
We've gone from just producing what we need to marketing which actually produces need.
It is ultimately unsustainable and creates a slave labor class.
For the developed world the slave labor is off shore and the slave owners are the governments that enslave their own people.
It is a sick system but no less so than socialism, communism or whatever else we've tried.
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: Anyhow while I wanted to rename my political affiliation as "socialist capitalist" I think I would have to change (to avoid confusion) into "free entrepreneur rules of law socialist" less ambiguous!
I think that I agree with you.
Capitalism is so dynamic. That is why it is so successful. It will adapt and then re-adapt as required.
It just needs some social and moral rules to control the greed ( and greed is good) and keep a fair go for all as attainable and at the same time look after us all.
I enjoyed the CP sub heading on the link to your post: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
There must be a midpoint where we can both share a bit more and profit hugely as well.
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
|
|
|
|
|
'is there a name for the political system favouring the rule of law '.
Yes there is. This is a constitutional republic.
|
|
|
|
|
Capitalism is a term some douche politician came up with. You are talking about Free Market Economics. Every economy is partially free market and partially socialism.
You sited a progressive website. Progressive means they want to progress past the Constitution. The Constitution is in place to keep the people in power instead of someone like a king or a absolute ruler.
The only people that is talking about anarchy is the big government people as an argument to the small government people. It's not true. They want to keep their power and control. If you think of this as a number line with Free Market on one side and Socialism on the other side. The small government people only want to slide it to the right to give the people back the power. No one wants a complete Free Market and no one wants anarchy.
|
|
|
|
|
When government revenues subsidize business and when most industries are dominated by oligopolies and when some businesses (e.g. NFL are considered non-profit/not-for-profit) is there really capitalism? Or something else? That is the more important question. 
David
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: Yet anarchy has never happened
I question the truth of that statement.
Super Lloyd wrote: and it has never been validated by past success
I also question that. Certainly without a specific definition of "success".
For example one might hypothesize that say 60,000 years ago that either anarchy existed or it was far closer to that than to any other system. And one might further suggest that since humans are still around that at that time it was a 'success'.
Super Lloyd wrote: this article made everything clear! 
http://progressiveliving.org/economics/capitalism_socialism_communism.htm[^]
Of course some of it is nonsensical such as the following..."Beginning with Reagan, and accelerating under the Bush administrations, the US has been lapsing back into the worst of its excesses."
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
