Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was under the impression that capitalism was purely an economic philosophy whereas socialism is more of a style of governing or societal structure?
Not necessarily. Capitalism also can apply to privatization of education, health, etc. Socialism means the government controls them all, along with the economic sector. It's a bit hard to explain, but under Socialism, every business is usually operated as a franchise.
Socialism is an economic system. But usually the characteristics of the social sector under 'Socialism' make people think they are one in the same. That basic concept also applies to Capitalism, the social sector's characteristics are usually similar and therefore lead people to believe they are the same.
Last edited by Frankie117; 05-21-2008 at 04:00 PM..
Perhaps the OP is suggesting that capitalism represents all things free including free markets; whereas socialism (a softer form of communism) represents a government's iron grip on its people and makes decisions based on the good of the commune (community). The latter are repressive while the former represents freedom.
Unfortunately, the sheople are heading to the slaughter rather quickly and with every new law created to protect us from ourselves, we are that much closer. Let us not forget also Nanny Govco telling people when and where to spend their money. Stealing from Peter to feed Paul is only acceptable in liberal societies where capitalism is dead.
They are both economic systems. People confuse socialism with social welfare. They aren't the same.
I read lots of confused people in these blogs, which I'm attributing to the political spectrum has been describing itself as 'liberal economic' or 'conservative tax' what have you. Definitions seem to have evolved into new stereotypes that I'm out of the loop on.
To have a 100% capitalist economic model in this country would mean zero regulations when commerce decides to collude through tools of price fixing. It would also mean anyone making false claims/shoddy workmanship- consumer protections would be absent. The political mentality behind this looks like- one pill works great, lemme take 20. This economic tool would be a complete abdigation of government responsibility if it were used 100%. We've had a limited version of it most of our history, with legislation trying to keep up with new technology implications in context of the law. The history of telephones companies over competing unregulated in chicago is what full blown laze faire means. There was practically more linear feet of wiring strung in the air than linear feet of people using it!
Socialism is something of a hybrid of democracy and communism as forms of governance. None are impervious to exploitation, but democracy is supposed to maintain the proviso of inalienable rights and ability of citizens to petition the law. I don't know that the in-house breaches of democracy from current gov't admin. means that this system has finally found it's achilles heel. The jury is still out.
A positive example of communism as a defense tool is our own US military. A positive example of socialism as a social tool are the spouses and families of military personell or Peace corp personell.
America adopted socialist principle social policy when creating social security administration and unemployment. It is not meant to replace anyones whole way of life, it's just like any other insurance- shared risk floats everyones boat. One insurance package insures for the sudden economic jolt to help you get back on your feet, the other insurance package insures for the natural seasons of a human beings life.
Anyone inherently against socialism is being a hypocrite for having any insurance policy at all. The solution approach to issues has little impact on democratic freedoms. It costs us all in the form of equal taxation. No actual freedoms are having to be sacraficed the way they are in military.
We really have neither system in America. We used to be capitalist, but now we are 'corporatist', meaning large corporations tend to get the government to stifle out the competition and pass laws that favor them instead of the people, like systematically destroying the Glass-Steagall Acts which were put in effect during the great depression in order to prevent another such horror. This allowed financial institutions to make these risky mortgage investments which led to the current housing failures and economies around the world being adversely affected.
This situation sees the government not tackling widespread issues that threaten all of us, like global warming. The thought being if research into alternate energies is only given lip service and no real support the situation will become more and more dire until the people yell 'enough'. Then, the government will say the only alternates that can be accessed practically at the moment are also polluters, such as coal and biofuel and nuclear with all of that radioactive waste that stays with us forever.
Look at all the bankruptcies caused by lack of adequate health care, and most of those people had health insurance, it just was not enough to keep body and soul together.
Our elected officials used to represent the people. Even in strict lassaiz-faire situations you would not see the feds bailing out Chrysler or the mortgage institutions who made such bad decisions or airlines. They would just fail and newer, streamlined, more efficient, smarter businesses would take their place.
Look at how the PUBLIC airwaves are permitted to be owned by a few conglomerates. Laws protecting the public, ensuring that we had access to accurate and unbiased reporting, etc, all going down the drain. Indeed, we have corporatism, not capitalism.
Neither Socialism or Capitalism were ever meant to exist in their 'purist' forms. When Marx first pioneered the ideas of Communism, he also wrote of Socialism as a 'feasible and less-exhausting' alternative to Communism. However, there are several differences, emphasized by the nations that embraced them. For example, during WWII, Socialist (Nazi) Germany was fighting against the Communists of Russia, not just on the battlefield but from an ideological standing as well (actually they were fighting that way with everyone). Hitler often emphasized the differences at his rallies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
