Communism v. Socialism v. Capitalism v. Feudalism

[DeathWarrior]

I would say a good mix of all of them except for feudalism, with socialism being most dominant. Here's my reasoning for each system as far as it's "purest" form (if anyone wants me to I could go into more detail on these I can, I'm just summarizing everything here so I don't end up typing possibly several pages of text):

 

-Pure Capitalism would not work at all: Completely dependent on a government controlled by bankers, who would eventually bankrupt the nation. Public services would be privatized, thus meaning no official military and no non-private police departments, fire departments, or emergency medical services. Those without enough money would be left to fend for themselves, creating a state of anarchy on top of the already bankrupt government. All of the private organizations would demand more and more money.

 

-Pure Communism would not work on a large scale or for the benefit of technological advancement: Based off of the idea of a Utopian society with no war, no money, no famine, etc...

 

-Pure Feudalism would not work for the benefit of technological advancement: Noblemen, royalty, and state sponsored religion would hog all money and kill scientific progress. The death of feudalism in Europe helped start the Renaissance.

 

-Pure Socialism might work but it would probably be really difficult to implement: Public services available for everyone and paid for by taxes. Don't have much else for here yet, I'll need to do a bit more research here.

 

I'll edit my post with more on socialism and add something on my thoughts on mercantilism (just now saw it on the 1st post)

[Balagor]

-Pure Socialism might work but it would probably be really difficult to implement: Public services available for everyone and paid for by taxes. Don't have much else for here yet, I'll need to do a bit more research here.

 

I'll edit my post with more on socialism and add something on my thoughts on mercantilism (just now saw it on the 1st post)

 

Having public services paid by tax I do not consider socialism. We have that in Denmark, and at the same time the most conservative rightwing goverment.

But it can be part of it, it lays in the word "socialism" (to be social). But the system will be social in everything, like quotas on productiion in order to produce sufficient, or not too much.The system also requires control on investors and banks, which many capitalists countries have introduced since the big bank crisis. Finally a socialism system (the ones I have seen) keeps you buisy, and on the limit to get enough spritual satisfaction, which is a perfect catalyst for idolizing. :thumbsup:

[Maxwell the Fool]

Pure socialism would not only require nationalized services, it would require the government owning ALL businesses. The government would have a literal monopoly on everything, and complete control of the economy. You would have no power to start your own business, there would be no competition, and so NO true progress. Socialism has many of the same problems as communism, because their only real differences (in their pure forms, utopian communism being the primary capitalist model) would be a choice of profession, the existence of money, and possibly the existence of free speech in socialism. Sure, socialism beats communism, but only by that much.

 

I heard an interesting argument this morning, while talking to a friend about this. He said that the only reason we don't have more people who are homeless in the US is because of our socialist programs (I was again, taking the side of capitalism), and that, were it not for the tax incentives on private charity no one would give ANY money, forget the large sums that we give every year. So here's what I summed up as being the difference between capitalism and socialism in charitable regards:

 

Capitalism relies on a few people of power to have the compassion to donate money to charity to provide 'life' (food, shelter in the cold, etc.), insure liberty, and their ability to continue the pursuit of happiness. Socialism FORCES everyone to be charitable via hefty taxes to insure the life and HAPPINESS of these individuals.

 

I can understand people staying in shelters and being fed. But giving people houses and apartments that they are unable to afford and do not need is simply HANDING them happiness, and taking away their liberty. The people who give you your money dictate how you spend it. Remember when you were young ('and your heart was an open book' XD) your parents would make you do chores and then give you money. But there was almost always that stipulation of "Don't spend it on candy," or video games, or trading cards, or WHATEVER! They (for most children) controlled in some way the usage of your money. Now imagine that was the government. Then the complaint becomes "You're not spending our money efficiently enough, so we're gonna let you starve for a few days." Is that what we're paying taxes for? Also imagine how easy it would be to defraud the welfare systems in most countries (especially the US).

 

Here's another angle on the same thing. When you pay taxes to say...... Home the homeless. What do you think when you see a homeless man who (supposedly) would be sheltered using your taxes? You look at him and think "Why didn't my taxes fix that?" But when you're walking around and DON'T pay taxes to help the homeless you see him and say something "Come, here's some food and 10 bucks, please, eat this and then go get yourself some more food." Get it? You're civic duty to help these people is never done, not even if laws supposedly destroy the existence of homeless people.

 

I know several homeless people, and whenever they get money they spend it on some frivolity or another, rather than being concerned with food. I house one of them in my home for a year, feeding and clothing him, until he could get a job. The other has a token job (mowing a nearly non-existent lawn) which I helped him get from a local small business. He's paid in food and likes it fine, because it keeps him from spending his money recklessly, and insures that he'll always have something to eat.

 

Another argument (for the other side(s): Compulsion and freedom are one and the same. By compelling you from being jobless you know have the freedom of having a job. By compelling you to where a motorcycle helmet you now have the freedom to live. And so if we were simply compelled in everything, we would have total freedom. Anyone want to agree with that one? Anyone see any flaws?

[Balagor]

Pure socialism would not only require nationalized services, it would require the government owning ALL businesses. The government would have a literal monopoly on everything, and complete control of the economy. You would have no power to start your own business, there would be no competition, and so NO true progress. Socialism has many of the same problems as communism, because their only real differences (in their pure forms, utopian communism being the primary capitalist model) would be a choice of profession, the existence of money, and possibly the existence of free speech in socialism. Sure, socialism beats communism, but only by that much.

 

I heard an interesting argument this morning, while talking to a friend about this. He said that the only reason we don't have more people who are homeless in the US is because of our socialist programs (I was again, taking the side of capitalism), and that, were it not for the tax incentives on private charity no one would give ANY money, forget the large sums that we give every year. So here's what I summed up as being the difference between capitalism and socialism in charitable regards:

 

Capitalism relies on a few people of power to have the compassion to donate money to charity to provide 'life' (food, shelter in the cold, etc.), insure liberty, and their ability to continue the pursuit of happiness. Socialism FORCES everyone to be charitable via hefty taxes to insure the life and HAPPINESS of these individuals.

 

I can understand people staying in shelters and being fed. But giving people houses and apartments that they are unable to afford and do not need is simply HANDING them happiness, and taking away their liberty. The people who give you your money dictate how you spend it. Remember when you were young ('and your heart was an open book' XD) your parents would make you do chores and then give you money. But there was almost always that stipulation of "Don't spend it on candy," or video games, or trading cards, or WHATEVER! They (for most children) controlled in some way the usage of your money. Now imagine that was the government. Then the complaint becomes "You're not spending our money efficiently enough, so we're gonna let you starve for a few days." Is that what we're paying taxes for? Also imagine how easy it would be to defraud the welfare systems in most countries (especially the US).

 

Here's another angle on the same thing. When you pay taxes to say...... Home the homeless. What do you think when you see a homeless man who (supposedly) would be sheltered using your taxes? You look at him and think "Why didn't my taxes fix that?" But when you're walking around and DON'T pay taxes to help the homeless you see him and say something "Come, here's some food and 10 bucks, please, eat this and then go get yourself some more food." Get it? You're civic duty to help these people is never done, not even if laws supposedly destroy the existence of homeless people.

 

I know several homeless people, and whenever they get money they spend it on some frivolity or another, rather than being concerned with food. I house one of them in my home for a year, feeding and clothing him, until he could get a job. The other has a token job (mowing a nearly non-existent lawn) which I helped him get from a local small business. He's paid in food and likes it fine, because it keeps him from spending his money recklessly, and insures that he'll always have something to eat.

 

Another argument (for the other side(s): Compulsion and freedom are one and the same. By compelling you from being jobless you know have the freedom of having a job. By compelling you to where a motorcycle helmet you now have the freedom to live. And so if we were simply compelled in everything, we would have total freedom. Anyone want to agree with that one? Anyone see any flaws?

 

I come from DK, a capitalist country. We have at the moment a conservative goverment. We pay taxes, with a smile, 60 % of us even want taxes raised, so we can increase services.

If you are unemployed, homeless, disabled, or by some other reason (disease, whatever) not able to work, you will get payed 2100 dollars per month, lifetime. For unemployed the amount will decrease to 1600 per month after 2½ year, and all the time you have to justifie that you are actively looking for a job. No hiding for lazybags. No matter who you are, homeless or chairman of a company, you can go to hospital / emergency / doctor / phsyciatrist for free. Should you need the most expensive surgery in the entire world, you´ll get it.

All this is payed through our taxes, and we pay them happily, well knowing that care will be taken for us should we need it.

What you call charity, like when you give 20 bucks to the homeless, is also caring for another person. We just made it a law here, and made the payings more regular.

Socialism? You may call it that if you want. I call it to be social, just like it is being social and caring when you give charity to the homeless. Competition? Hospitals can be owned by the state, the region or can be private. The same goes for doctors / emergencies / shrinks.

[hoshi23]

you pople dont quite understand the technological revolution at all.

soon there wont be any work left anymore that machines cant do save for some experts. the harmonics they are changing.

[Maxwell the Fool]

you pople dont quite understand the technological revolution at all.

soon there wont be any work left anymore that machines cant do save for some experts. the harmonics they are changing.

 

Noted. You don't understand the point of this thread. Maybe if you read a few posts you'd have the sense to contribute :wink:

 

@Balagor:

 

It IS socialism. It follows the economic philosophies. I researched your country and found that it was considered to be a country that practices Socialist Capitalism. Very similar to what we have in the US, but significantly more generous. Also, how is your economy right now? How much debt is your government in? Your province?

 

I know the answers: just as bad as the US. The socialism propping up the system and keeping people from dying is all well and good, but it doesn't save you when the economy takes a down-turn.

 

Making charity into law is forcing morality onto people, forcing them to engage in an activity which they may or may not feel is moral. Also, if you get 2100 dollars no matter what, why do you work? You can live comfortably, by yourself (assuming you're talking about US dollars, as your currency is the Krone....), almost indefinitely. If you can't in Denmark than your cost of living is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than most parts of the US, revealing another flaw in your system due to socialism. Whether or not charity is right, it is not necessary to mandate payment to the unemployed/whatever. The week die, the strong survive.

 

Also, I should note that these don't exactly hold to my true feelings, so no Ad Hominem attacks :)

[Balagor]

you pople dont quite understand the technological revolution at all.

soon there wont be any work left anymore that machines cant do save for some experts. the harmonics they are changing.

 

Noted. You don't understand the point of this thread. Maybe if you read a few posts you'd have the sense to contribute :wink:

 

@Balagor:

 

It IS socialism. It follows the economic philosophies. I researched your country and found that it was considered to be a country that practices Socialist Capitalism. Very similar to what we have in the US, but significantly more generous. Also, how is your economy right now? How much debt is your government in? Your province?

 

I know the answers: just as bad as the US. The socialism propping up the system and keeping people from dying is all well and good, but it doesn't save you when the economy takes a down-turn.

 

Making charity into law is forcing morality onto people, forcing them to engage in an activity which they may or may not feel is moral. Also, if you get 2100 dollars no matter what, why do you work? You can live comfortably, by yourself (assuming you're talking about US dollars, as your currency is the Krone....), almost indefinitely. If you can't in Denmark than your cost of living is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than most parts of the US, revealing another flaw in your system due to socialism. Whether or not charity is right, it is not necessary to mandate payment to the unemployed/whatever. The week die, the strong survive.

 

Also, I should note that these don't exactly hold to my true feelings, so no Ad Hominem attacks :)

 

Well, where should I start. Ok Denmark is the second most expensive country in the world to live in. :woot: Only Norway is more expensive. :sick: So even though you get 2100 dollars per, you can make a living, but absolutely not in luxery. You´ll have to cut down everything not necarssery. To compare the salery for a skill worker is around 5-6000 dollars per month (30.000 kroner)

However, I wonder who on the internet says Denmark practies Socialist Capitalism, we our selves do not consider it that. But never mind.

Still what distinguish our system from hardcore socialism, is that we are not forced in any way.

Our high taxes, our healthcare, all our services are programmes we the people have voted for, not been forced into. Perhaps you are a little right about there is a mix of socialism in our policy, but it works well along with capitalism, wich after all is our main system.

For the national debts it´s around 40 billion (kroner) at the moment, which is only half of the limit allowed by the European Community.

Speaking about national debts, a great deal was created by greedy (capitalist) banks who couldn`t get 2 years ago when the wheel where spinning really fast, and the invested in almost everything, also business of rather dubious character. Who helped them? Taxpayers. (socialism) :thumbsup:

[Maxwell the Fool]

The debt was caused by socialist actions taken by our president, who gave all of those greedy banks trillions of dollars :D , not by the greedy banks themselves.

 

Your high cost of living is do very much to your high taxes, which are part of the socialist hews in your system :)

[Balagor]

The debt was caused by socialist actions taken by our president, who gave all of those greedy banks trillions of dollars :D , not by the greedy banks themselves.

 

Your high cost of living is do very much to your high taxes, which are part of the socialist hews in your system :)

 

Ok, lets try the capitalism way. 100 % you make your own luck. This is just an experiment and for fun. Say, all hospitals, doctors, emergencies, unemployed in DK is no longer payed by taxes.

Ok, I will pay WAY lower taxes now. If I am lucky, and never get unemployed or seriously ill, I realy made my day. I will earn a LOT of monye. That is, if I am a gambler and pay for no insurrances.

IF I what to have insurrances for unemployment/hospitals/doctors/etc, I am sure (without having the figures) that I will have to pay all my saved taxes to insurance companies. I think it is the way of economy, no matter of what way you do it, state or insurance, it costs money to have hospitals/doctors/unemployment. It is only a matter of what way you whan to do it. The price is the same. There might even be a tiny little pro in the socialist system, healthcare is automatic. You can NOT let it expire, like in the other system with insurance; if your economi is bad, and you can not afford it anymore, you are likely to let it expire.

[Maxwell the Fool]

Exactly, the trade offs are equal. Capitalism just gives people the freedom to choose, the freedom to compete :thumbsup: