For any "ism" to be successful, including "Capitalism" or "Socialism", it needs to honestly follow universally-accepted laws, conventions, and customs -- including a principle of behavior that is as old as mankind itself: WORK FOR WHAT YOU GET! If you won't work or do anything to support yourself, you're a PARASITE, and neither Nature itself, nor any successful "ism" that mankind has ever devised has any use or regard for you! Parasitic creatures of all kinds have been hated and reviled by all successful cultures and societies since the beginning of civilization!
Please answer each of these questions with a simple "yes" or "no": Isn't socialism presented as the "antidote" for capitalism? Isn't socialism an alternative to capitalism? Isn't socialism the release of workers from the exploitation of "wage slavery"? Isn't socialism contrary to, and in opposition to, the private business ownership and private profit rights found in capitalism? Is it not true that the system of private ownership of the means of production for private profit is called "capitalism" and the system of worker ownership and control of the means of production for collective benefit is called "socialism"?
So you think these things define socialism? Is that what you think socialism is about? My last post to you was sarcasm, and these two issues are also common in capitalist societies like this one. They have nothing to do with economics. They are about working out an effective way of solving problems in all societies. To list them and claim they indicate some weakness of socialism is not only ludicrous, but also indicative of lacking very basic understanding of the subject. I think your dog is cute but you need much more information on socialism.
Social housing and tax credits are socialist ideas. Capitalism wants you to own your house, hence why Margaret Thatcher gave you the right to buy your council house. Some years later, it was scrapped. Tax credits is part of the welfare system, you know, that socialist idea where the government pay you benefits to sit on your backside. I'm surprised you're not conversed in basic politics and economics.
I'm surprised you're not well versed in English and communication. It is a bourgeois item of propaganda that social housing and tax credits are "socialist" ideas. The USA has been the leading capitalist country for decades, yet at the same time we have those same programs and no one is calling the USA "socialist". It is a bourgeois item of propaganda that socialism is what you have when you have programs that are socially beneficial or helpful to the poor and needy. That is an attempt to confuse and thereby disarm the public.
When we Conservatives attack Socialism, the socialists fire back saying that if the government doesn't take over corporations and companies, and all the avenues of distribution then we don't know what we're talking about! Truth? There are "shades of gray" in the way that Socialism is practiced in the world. At the stage where the government completely takes over everything, the 'Socialism' is virtually the same as Communism. But there are actually many more 'socialistic' countries where private enterprise is allowed to exist -- and it is HEAVILY TAXED -- to support all the 'social programs', including handout welfare, "subsidies", free-this, free-that, and on and on... the classic "cradle-to-grave" Socialism that Democrats use as their only real appeal to voters. Think: who in their right mind would ever vote for a clot of crap like we see in today's Democrat Party if it weren't for the enduring promise and appeal of FREE STUFF?! . "Vote for us and you'll never have to do anything your whole lives!"
You are partially correct, and much of the problem we Americans have with identifying "Socialism" is semantic (or, propaganda, as you would have it). The biggest problem lies, perhaps, in confusing "Socialism" with that which is "socialistic" in nature and in practice! Thus, as a European, you'd agree with me that Germany, for instance, is heavily "socialistic", but not, strictly speaking, a government that is identified as "Socialism", per se...(?). Our own American form of what is commonly described as "Socialism" -- i.e., the government handout welfare, the "subsidies", and all the other give-away's and 'free-stuff' is "socialistic" -- and becoming more so every time we elect a pack of Democrats. None of ANY of this wretched, parasitic, socialistic methodology is authorized by, or found in, our Constitution....
Here's a link on "Social" housing. The clue is in the words, "Social" housing. http://www.socialism.org.uk/manifesto/housing.html The link is the Socialism web site. Please feel free to e-mail them that social housing is a capitalist idea and owning the capital item, "The house" is a socialist idea. I'm sure you will make then giggle at first and then they'll not doubt sigh.
NO. Tell me clearly what capitalism is, and what socialism is. I think you're hiding from the question.
Do it yourself, I'm not your lackey. If you don't educate up, your silly posts on the subject will continue.
Not sure why some partake in a thread where their basic knowledge is lacking, then the double whammy is, they want me to educate them or I'm avoiding the question!! Social housing is a big give away. In a way Thatcher giving the right to buy, is in effect privatisation, allowing people to own the capital. Arthur Scargill, Socialist Labour Party, hated Thatcher and guess what he did? He bought his council house, taking advantage of Thatcher's capitalist policy!!
I'm talking about other countries than this one mainly, though I do note that having grown up when there were no government "handouts" (and just how old are you anyway for that to be the case?) you now want to visit your misfortunes on every one else that you can. Most people I know who were ever poor don't want to see it happen to anyone else. And one other thing you and all your non-parasitical ilk never seem to realize. Rich people are robbing you far better and far more effectively than some poor bastard in Honduras could ever dream of doing.
They so dearly want to take part and be heard but they don't know how the game is played. They think ridiculing the other guy (as this one is fond of doing) will give him an air of superiority but it doesn't work.
The reason you were asked what you THOUGHT Socialism and Capitalism were is because you obviously don't know what they are, as your posts clearly indicate. Socialism, then can become "anything I don't like", as it clearly has in your case.
Looks like I'm Fly Paper for a certain clan. Tap into Google, "Socialism Definition" and then "Capitalism Definition" Then read both and then look for examples. Good luck. And back to the start. Socialism is fantastic on paper, it doesn't work in practice because people are not honest.
You're the one who needs education. Your comments show you have no idea what socialism is, and your refusal to say what you think shows you're afraid to show the truth of your confusion. This is a discussion/debate forum and you have been commenting on socialism. If you don't answer my question about YOUR understanding of it, I have no reason to reply to you again about anything because of the way you seem to be refusing to discuss. So your choice: answer my question or be ignored.
I have forgotten more about Marx and socialism than both of you know combined. But you're both terrified of being discovered for your lack of knowledge of this. You're afraid to pit your knowledge against mine because you know you will lose the debate, and that is just too much for you to bear.
The repeatedly-affirmed, pragmatic integration of free-market capitalism and inclusive social welfare commitment that is a hallmark of all advanced democratic nations. Reality does not validate the ideologues.
I need some definitions first. Those are the two terms that seem to be the most widely defined by different people. Right now we have a mixed economy, which seems the best to me.
