Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You took the words right out of my mouth. As well as modern notions of welfare, which iirc, come from a socialist background, and the NHS.@Duke_Leto, roughly speaking capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by private investors for profit. In comparison, socialism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community as a whole and administered for the benefit of all.
In America -- and most advanced nations -- you do indeed have a mixed economy. For instance, most American businesses are privately owned, but some services, such as public roads, public school systems, public police and fire departments, etc, are community owned. That is, there is a mix of private and public ownership.
Is there a compromise for Capitalism and Socialism? It seems to me that Capitalism is too focused on competition and greed while Socialism is too vulnerable to Government control and influence.
Is there a compromise for Capitalism and Socialism? It seems to me that Capitalism is too focused on competition and greed while Socialism is too vulnerable to Government control and influence.
@Duke_Leto, roughly speaking capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by private investors for profit. In comparison, socialism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community as a whole and administered for the benefit of all.
In America -- and most advanced nations -- you do indeed have a mixed economy. For instance, most American businesses are privately owned, but some services, such as public roads, public school systems, public police and fire departments, etc, are community owned. That is, there is a mix of private and public ownership.
Democratic socialism.Is there a compromise for Capitalism and Socialism? It seems to me that Capitalism is too focused on competition and greed while Socialism is too vulnerable to Government control and influence.
The point of socialism is to abolish factories?I’ll grant that it’s a rough definition, but that roughness blurs understanding. Businesses don’t need to be managed by private entities to be capitalist, for instance.
Socialism is the abolition of the law of value, and all its entrapments — money, commodity production, exchange value. It is a fundamentally different type of society than that which presently exists. No matter how much the state owns — even if it owns and manages everything — that is not socialism; it is governance. The point of socialism isn’t to nationalize factories; it’s to abolish them. The struggle isn’t against some cartoon cariacture of CEOs or banksters who are themselves slaves of capital; it’s against capital itself, and no amount of institutions being “publicly owned” (that is, owned by the state) makes a society “socialist”.
I’ll grant that it’s a rough definition, but that roughness blurs understanding. Businesses don’t need to be managed by private entities to be capitalist, for instance.
Socialism is the abolition of the law of value, and all its entrapments — money, commodity production, exchange value. It is a fundamentally different type of society than that which presently exists. No matter how much the state owns — even if it owns and manages everything — that is not socialism; it is governance. The point of socialism isn’t to nationalize factories; it’s to abolish them. The struggle isn’t against some cartoon cariacture of CEOs or banksters who are themselves slaves of capital; it’s against capital itself, and no amount of institutions being “publicly owned” (that is, owned by the state) makes a society “socialist”.
Is there a compromise for Capitalism and Socialism? It seems to me that Capitalism is too focused on competition and greed while Socialism is too vulnerable to Government control and influence.
You are of course free to understand socialism and capitalism in whatever ways you wish, but your views are not shared by economists, political scientists, or most other informed people. The definitions I gave of socialism and capitalism were straight out of the book.
There are no purely capitalistic or purely socialist countries in existenceto my knowldge. Most are a mix of the two with the components consisting of the things the citizens of those countries deemed useful.
It's interesting to note that many community-owned services oftentimes contract out to privately owned corporate enterprises.@Duke_Leto, roughly speaking capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by private investors for profit. In comparison, socialism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community as a whole and administered for the benefit of all.
In America -- and most advanced nations -- you do indeed have a mixed economy. For instance, most American businesses are privately owned, but some services, such as public roads, public school systems, public police and fire departments, etc, are community owned. That is, there is a mix of private and public ownership.
The definition I gave is the standard Marxist definition. Given that Marx was the first to popularize these terms, and that almost all who have actually historically called themselves socialists have used these definitions, I maintain that they are correct. Socialists may support measures such as universal healthcare to the extent that they ameliorate the conditions of the working class, but state control of resources has nothing to do with socialism. The definition you've come up with is the result of defining capitalism to be the 'free market' (something which obviously can't truly exist, and so is useless for describing an economic system), and then conflating socialism with any measures which a state may take to restrict the market.
Every country in the world is capitalist. A 'mix of socialism and capitalism' is an oxymoron. Once again, capitalism is not the 'free market', and socialism has nothing to do with state ownership of resources.
I do not believe that is true. A government can have elements of both.
The definition you've come up with is the result of defining capitalism to be the 'free market' (something which obviously can't truly exist, and so is useless for describing an economic system), and then conflating socialism with any measures which a state may take to restrict the market.
Poppycock.