Capitalism or Socialism?

[Beorn]

I believe that all essential services (fuel, water, transport, communications) should be provided by the state.

Agreed. With the exception of the fuel, transport and communications (by which you mean t.v and radio, etc?) I would like to adopt the system that Northern Ireland implements.

They pay a rate towards their water and amenities of £90 a month (or there abouts taking into consideration your location) whereas in England at least, we pay minimum £100-odd towards our council bills a month plus our water bills each quarter which is inflated as and where it is allowable under a very poorly maintained and heavily rated system.

I would like to see this system adopted in England and perhaps bettered in it also incorporating transport systems.

[ikki]

the sole problem with caipalism is the low number of capitalists, if 80% of the population were capitalists, it would be far more beneficial.
Socialism is equally bad. Founded along with democracy, that night so long ago in athen... when the dictator was overthrown but was unwilling to step down. And so he robbed everyone to pay a few supporter.

[Kempenzoon]

If it is part of a system that was voted in by the majority of the electorate, then it cannot be theft. It is voluntary then.

Actually no.

If you put me in a room with 10 people, and we all are forced to vote what will happen, and 9 people vote to take all my belongings, and I'm the only one voting against it ... does that mean it's no longer theft? Does that even mean it's voluntarily at all?

The masses are not always right. The masses are blind sheep who are too occupied by their tabloids to see the big lies and the manipulation.

[Beorn]

If you put me in a room with 10 people, and we all are forced to vote what will happen, and 9 people vote to take all my belongings, and I'm the only one voting against it ... does that mean it's no longer theft? Does that even mean it's voluntarily at all?

It would depend upon what you possess and what the other nine do not possess.

[Kempenzoon]

It would depend upon what you possess and what the other nine do not possess.

Why would that make a difference?

[Beorn]

Why would that make a difference?

You tell me. You were the one who said:

"If you put me in a room with 10 people, and we all are forced to vote what will happen, and 9 people vote to take all my belongings, and I'm the only one voting against it ... does that mean it's no longer theft? Does that even mean it's voluntarily at all?"

You've implied you possess something which the other nine do not. What was it?

[Æmeric]

And in response to Aemeric:

Capitalism without free trade would no longer be capitalism. Socialist policies should protect populations from the full impact of globalization without weakening them from stiff external competition. No country can isolate itself from the rest of the world and the realities of what alternatives are available and how cheaply others can produce goods.

Free trade as described by Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations" is not what we currently have under globalization. Big corporations offshore labor & re-export finished products to their domestic markets. Free trade as advocated by Smith meant that trade should be to each nations competitive advantage, that each nation should concentrate on what it did best. England for example should import wine rather then try & develope a domestic wine industry, protected by tariffs. The English did have a competitive advantage at making pig iron. Portugal should export wine to England & import pig ron from England. The English were the major producers of pig iron at the time.

I see cooperatives as a form of socialism. I do not equate socialism with control by a distant state, though the state is best placed for coordinating large-scale cooperative arrangements.

Copperatives are voluntary & are run by the customers, who are also the owners. As opposed to a government mandated collective. Controlled by bureaucrats.

[Kempenzoon]

You tell me. You were the one who said:

"If you put me in a room with 10 people, and we all are forced to vote what will happen, and 9 people vote to take all my belongings, and I'm the only one voting against it ... does that mean it's no longer theft? Does that even mean it's voluntarily at all?"

You've implied you possess something which the other nine do not. What was it?

Doesn't have to be something they don't have. If you give 10 people each 100 euros, it's still human nature to want 110 euros instead. So no, I didn't imply what you claim.

[Beorn]

Doesn't have to be something they don't have. If you give 10 people each 100 euros, it's still human nature to want 110 euros instead. So no, I didn't imply what you claim.

You didn't mention any of the above or imply you were placed into a situation of the above. You simply stated you were in a room with nine others and they voted to take your belongings. The situation was therefore implied that what it was you possessed in the room was the envy of the other nine members, and they voted for your possessions accordingly.

Anyway, it was merely an observation.

[Ariets]

How then do you explain Nazi Germany's astonishing economic success and prosperity, fuelled by socialist economic policies? The NSDAP was vehemently opposed to Jewish-American-style capitalism. And I'm not talking about racial policies and foreign policy now..

lol, Im dissapointed of you (with the nazis).

Their economic succes (minimalising inflantion that was simply huge after second world war) wasn't succes of socialist economic policies, their socialism was even stricte socialism vide SPD like these days, they respected private property and even helped (which was typical for goverments like that) few factories, being less regulated by the goverment (it was actually corrupted system, and NSDAP betrayed their socialism and economical ideas of working class blabla crap), it was highly militaristic, whole issue of the Nazi Germany economical succes is debate for the other thread cause it ain't so simply as some may think.

If it is part of a system that was voted in by the majority of the electorate, then it cannot be theft. It is voluntary then. Soviet Communism was theft, yes, but we're not talking about that.

1) Not really, eg. in Poland dominating these days party is Civic Platform (PO), they declare themself to be conservative liberals, which they aren't. They haven't dont anything to liberalise economics.

2) Secondly, I dont legitimize and dont approve democracy as a political system. Its degenerative regime of the majority, even ancients of the past knew that (eg. Plato, who was extreme statist)

3) I dont give a fuck about majority of the electorate, that they are majority doesn't mean they are right.

Its like a gang rape, lets say 10 rapist and one victime, well majority is happy then too, isnt?

4) It's NOT VOLUNTARY when Im FORCED to it. Thats quite opposite.

5) Most people don't know nothign about politics, dont even know what word capitalism or socialism stands for. And you will find that all over Europe,

Yes I know, someone has to pay. The richest people in society should support the lower levels with a percentage of their earnings. Otherwise, you're creating a class-based and split community that will always be at great odds with each other -- leading to resentment, crime, robbery, etc.

Thats completly rubish and unfair treatment of the society, all are citzen equal to the law or not?

You say the richest people should, why they should even care?

And not, criminals are not product of society, we all are products of ourselves.

Well, the Swedish model has worked very well. Sweden is one of the most advanced countries on earth, and their citizens are enjoying fantastic quality of life. It is only now being corrupted by massive immigration from unwanted areas of the globe.

Actually it was allways corrupted, even Sweden isn't 100% socialistic regime, but after all it is socialist regime in most cases with regulated free market (which is even largerly free that for example market of Germany etc.).


I'll quote more less Janusz Korwin-Mikke: Socialist are a) COMPLETE MORONS, aka idealist that really belief it such slavery, and b) THIEFS that wants to get richer, by exploiting people under socialist regime.