I have seen a few threads where people say we should balance socialism and capitalism, as they both have pros/cons. Those people are idiots. It is impossible to mix the two. Socialism is not redistribution-ism. The difference between them is who controls the means of production and capital. Thus, in socialism, workers have control of the means of production, and in capitalism, private individuals do. Now, tell me, how do you propose to mix that? Have a compromise where private individuals propose things and they get voted on by workers? I do not think anyone here believes that to be intelligent.

That leads me to my second point - the idiocy of socialism and socialists. They advocate allowing workers to control the means of production and capital. Tell me, how will anything get done? Unless 100% of the workforce agrees, there will be division and strife, which will cause productivity to tank and at best result in a sizable minority being ignored completely. It is not feasible to make economic decisions based on the will of the masses and populism. Do you want your co-worker running the factory, having a say in raises and the like? It is idiocy. A single, cool-headed voice is needed, which is what capitalism is. Communism is also an option, but I hope we all realize that it will never work, and to try it after so many failures would be the epitome of incompetence.

Therefore, I have a point on Bernie Sander's campaign. He is a self-described socialist. Now, he either 1). truly believes in the ownership of the means of production by the workers, which as we saw is infeasible, therefore becoming ineligible due to his suicidal economic policy, although since he never talks about worker ownership of capital I doubt that is the case; meaning that 2). he is either clueless as to what socialism actually is, and thus to uninformed to be the president, or he is 3). not a true socialist, but a redistributionist, and simply using socialism as a prop, which would mean he is fake and insincere.
So, Bernie is a) an idiot, 2) uninformed, or 3) insincere. Is that what you want?

I will continue tomorrow with how re-distributionism is idiocy, but it is late and I'am tired. Until then, please refrain from incorrectly using the term 'socialist' and stick to redistributionist' while referring to people like Bernie. And never try to mix socialism and capitalism.

Watch me.

Edited 2/9/2016 03:10:18

I'll have to disagree with you.

First, Bernie doesn't describe himself as a socialist, but as a democratic socialist, search in google to see the difference. He's really smart and I really do believe he knows the difference...

Second, you don't know what socialism is, you described communism. Socialism doesn't gives the workers shares of the companies and decisions over it, but rather gives the gvt the control of every mean of production. So, actually, you don't know the difference here.

Three, we've seen the worst of socialism, but never the worst of capitalism (but let's not rush it, we'll see it soon). If I had to choose between the worst of capitalism and the worst of socialism, I'd take the second one.


I don't describe myself as a leftist or socialist. I actually live well and benefit from the current system, but I do not believe it is fair. A change must be made and it becomes with a change in the current system.

Capitalism has systematic flaws that can only be avoided through regulation, and that's a fact, get over it if you don't believe it.

Gvt must also spend a lot in three major sectors in order to have a fair society:
- Education, that must be of quality and FREE.
- Safety (Law enforcement, justice and defense)
- Social Security

Secondary sectors that must have some gvt involved:
- Healthcare
- Infrastructure
- Research


As long as gvt exists in these sectors, any society can work and the economy will do fine.


Oh, and I'd say that subsidies are the worst fucking thing a gvt can do. It brings the worst of the two systems (socialism and capitalism), but I won't make a whole paragraph to explain this, this answer is already too long ^^.

"In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system.” - Milton Friedman

From 1978 to 2002, China's rural poverty population dropped from 250 million to 28.2 million; a decrease by 88.7%. (https://www.imf.org/external/np/apd/seminars/2003/newdelhi/angang.pdf)

From 2004 to 2012, India's poverty population dropped from 407 million to 269 million; a decrease of 138 million in 7 years. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/29/indias_silent_poverty_reduction_miracle_119407.html)


I just communicated with Karl Marx across the grave. He tells me he was wrong. It works. Let's all calm down and get back to work.

Edited 2/9/2016 03:34:22

Pretty much every state ever is a combination of both policies, any gov't regulation is valid to be considered socialism. Pure capitalism is no gov't regulation, no gov't incentives, pretty much no gov't in the economy. Marx didn't figure out how people thought. Also, congrats Jai on sighting milton freedman.

Can you explain how supply creates demand(One of the main tenants of Monetarism, the economic idea he founded)?(I just want to understand the viewpoint)

Capitalism works to some point. Even Marx admitted capitalism was an amazing system. He just saw it's flaws and believed socialism and then communism to be a better system.

And as for the poverty reduction, of course capitalism first reduces poverty. It's better to be paid 50 cents an hour for a job in asia (paid by big corp.), then the regular 25 cents an hour... But the consequence of this is people in industrialized countries losing their jobs.

Too much free-market and capitalism just makes the hole system implode.

USA is a "champion" of capitalism. And yet, it has the worst poverty rates ammoung industrialized countries. Scandinavia and it's democratic socialism worked better here...

And at the end of the day, sure, capitalism makes the gdp higher, but does it mean anything? Why the heck do I need the bigger gdp per capita in the world if this income is at the top 1 percent?

UK is the better example of economic liberalism screwing up. Social cuts from the gvt hits the poor unfairly, and sure the economy is growing, but renting an apt in London is impossible right now, and there's more and more people living on starving wages as a result (still better then no wages, I guess?).

Can you explain how supply creates demand(One of the main tenants of Monetarism, the economic idea he founded)?(I just want to understand the viewpoint)

I believe this is a total bullshit, supply can't create demand. It's really the opposite, if there's demand there's supply.

I can't possibly understand how a supply of, Idk, red sticks will create a demand for it lol. Maybe you can't create demand by advertising, and thus telling people there's supply? But really, it's really hard to say that's a real proof of it xD.


I truly believe it's not possible for an economic law to work that way, but if someone wanna explain it better, I'd like to hear it.

Capitalism:
http://www.familyadventureproject.org/
Socialism:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/14/opinion/lee-north-korea-refugee/?hpt=hp_c3

@TeamGuns, I agree with you, I'm just trying to understand their point of view, so I can destroy it with Keynes.

@[wolf]japan77 Keynes is a real genius and his theory is very good. But I don't like the mean idea of deficits to fix the economy, the system doesn't works for the long run because of human actions: gvnts will never cut spending after the crisis because of politics. Plus, his system is very bad for environement as the way to boost the economy will always lead to the need of an overconsumption of ressources.

Wrong questions. Both political ideas are about accumulation of wealth, which is bad. So both systems are equally disruptive. Chernobyl and Fukushima? Soviet heavy industry or Houston petroleum economy? What a mess, but depression time is over, so whining does not help...

+100000 Kreto and Teamguns

Burn The Heretics!!

noone clicked my links :(

OP's lack of understanding of socialism is baffling, wich makes me think that he is:
1)an idiot, 2) uninformed, or 3) insincere

Edited 2/9/2016 11:49:06

or

4) American

merica, f*** yeah...

"Second, you don't know what socialism is, you described communism. "

Communism: the common ownership of the means of production

Socialism: socialism is defined as public ownership of the means of production

Tell me again the major difference between the two. The two are almost identical, which is why it is highly amusing when people say Communism is bad, but socialism is good. They are the same in all but name.

"OP's lack of understanding of socialism is baffling"
Please do tell, how would you define socialism? Not as I did, certainly; those pesky little definitions always get in the way, don't they.


"Capitalism has systematic flaws that can only be avoided through regulation, and that's a fact, get over it if you don't believe it. "
Yes, of course it does. The point I am trying to make is that that regulation is NOT socialism, nor is redistributionism. It makes me angry when people say that regulation is socialism and every system needs some of both, because you can't mix them. And to say it isn't a pure capitalist system because of regulation is stupid, because private individuals still control the means of production.

General PE is a clear ignorant believing Socialism :

                                                      
          ,                    
         ,@,                                             
        ,@@@,                   
       ,@@@@@,            
`@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@`                                     
  `@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@`                                       
    `@@@@@@@@@@@`                                         
   ,@@@@@@`@@@@@@,                                        
   @@@@`     `@@@@                                        
  ;@`           `@;                                       
    _   _   _   _                                         
   (   (   (   |_)                                        
    ~   ~   ~  |   

"Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix"

Social democracy ever heard of this?

Do you consider France currently led by the Parti Socialiste (French Socialist Party) as non capitalist?

No, they are redistributionist/regulationist, not truly socialist. They just use socialism as a name to garner support among uneducated people ignorant of its true meaning.

"Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy with social ownership of the means of production."

In effect, socialism with a democratic government. They still use the socialist system of ownership of the means of production.

They just use socialism as a name to garner support among uneducated people ignorant of its true meaning.

After reading this, you realize that you still don't get the very concept of Socialism and its different existing forms.

Read Jean Jaurès would you, then we shall discuss.