The difference between socialism and capitalism in one photo

[Gipper]

You continue to make statements and take positions that turn reality inside out and upside down.

This is of course, a common trait for Commies.

 

[Gipper]

Liberals beloved socialism is not working in Venezula.

And yet, many liberals love Chavez. Just further proof of their inability to think.

(Reuters) - The hillside slum of "Las Mayas" provides both great vistas of Caracas and an ideal view of a housing crisis shaping into a major battleground for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's re-election bid.

Along one side of the once-forested slopes, shacks of corrugated iron, wood and mud cling precariously to land that erodes a little bit further whenever it rains.

Every few days, a house collapses or land slips away.

At the bottom of the valley lies a possible solution: rows of neat red-brick apartments that are part of Chavez's vision of new "Socialist Cities", designed to end the South American nation's housing shortage while promoting communal living.

"The biggest problem in Venezuela right now is houses," said Marisol Aponte, part of a group of women community leaders sweating their way round Las Mayas' steep tracks on a recent day to
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/02/us-venezuela-housing-idUSTRE7513EO20110602

 

[Stalin]

Just about every one of your posts practically screams "I don't know what I'm talking about".

As everyone who passed world history 101 with at least a "D" knows, the New Economic Policy WAS an introduction (briefly) of all kinds of capitalist elements into the soviet system.

Really, do you EVER tire of making a fool of yourself? How HARD would it be to sit down and read, cover to cover, a world history book and a standard economics book, and know what you're talking about, instead of your endless laughable text dumps from leftwing sites-for-morons?

The Rick technique

1) Call anyone who disagrees a moron.

2) When proven wrong, pretend you knew much more and add an insult into the bargain coupled with a condescending attempted put-down or two.

3) Ad hominem ad nauseum

4) Pull out the old arrogant physics student routine - imply anyone who hasn't done high level physics and modern moneterist rubbish completely stupid.

5) Balame Obama for hurricanes, earthquakes, the iranian bomb etc etc

6) Forget this is a debating forum and get real personal.

Comrade Stalin

 

[PLC1]

Liberals beloved socialism is not working in Venezula.

And yet, many liberals love Chavez. Just further proof of their inability to think.

No, of course socialism isn't working in Venezuela. It hasn't worked anywhere else, so why would it work there?

Who are these "liberals" who love socialism and love Chavez? Do they really exist, or are they just a figment of your imagination?

 

[Rick]

No, of course socialism isn't working in Venezuela. It hasn't worked anywhere else, so why would it work there?

Who are these "liberals" who love socialism and love Chavez? Do they really exist, or are they just a figment of your imagination?

How about when obozo went there and called Chavez "mi amigo" - does that qualify?

 

[PLC1]

How about when obozo went there and called Chavez "mi amigo" - does that qualify?

No.
Did you think he'd refer to him as "El Pendejo"?

 

[Rick]

No.

Hokayyyyyyyyy.......... consistency is not your strong suit.

Did you think he'd refer to him as "El Pendejo"?

Nooooo........

 

[GenSeneca]

So, are you saying that the real definition of capitalism doesn't describe the system in North America, Western Europe, and the other wealthy lands of the world, or are you operating on some other definition of the word?

Notice that your definition calls Capitalism an "economic system" while my definition refers to it as a social system. I suppose you don't think that matters where definitions are concerned...

Socialism, System of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice.​

Notice this is the definition of Socialism as a social doctrine rather than an economic system.

Now lets compare it with the definition of Socialism as purely an economic system...

Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system.​

The definitions of Socialism as an economic and social system are not interchangable, the same is true of Capitalism.

 

[PLC1]

Notice that your definition calls Capitalism an "economic system" while my definition refers to it as a social system. I suppose you don't think that matters where definitions are concerned...

Socialism, System of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice.​

Notice this is the definition of Socialism as a social doctrine rather than an economic system.

Now lets compare it with the definition of Socialism as purely an economic system...

Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system.​

The definitions of Socialism as an economic and social system are not interchangable, the same is true of Capitalism.

Then "socialism" in a "social system" context means that private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, which would describe every modern nation in the world, including South Korea (example of capitalism in the OP.)

Capitalism in a social system context, then, must mean the opposite: There is no social control over private property or the distribution of income.

Such a nation does not exist, and never has, although 19th. century America came pretty close.

Such a system would mean that if I wanted to have a toxic waste dump in my back yard, there would be nothing to stop me, correct?

 

[Rick]

Then "socialism" in a "social system" context means that private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, which would describe every modern nation in the world, including South Korea (example of capitalism in the OP.)

Capitalism in a social system context, then, must mean the opposite: There is no social control over private property or the distribution of income.

Such a nation does not exist, and never has, although 19th. century America came pretty close.

Such a system would mean that if I wanted to have a toxic waste dump in my back yard, there would be nothing to stop me, correct?

Socialism means one thing - state ownership of the means of production and distribution. Like capitalism, socialism is an an abstract idea, which has come closest to reality in North Korea, where it has come VERY close. That the systems never perfectly match the abstraction is of no consequence. If a society like North Korea is 99.9% socialist according some useful metric, then it will have 99.9% of the problems associated with socialism.

To answer your question - yes, you would have the right to put in a toxic dump, if you hadn't contracted to not do that. That's why in a free (capitalist) society, property owners in a given area would demand (and get) covenants and restrictions, that would permanently enjoin owners from doing such things, as in my home owners association. Leftwingers are good with coming up with these sorts of invalid examples, which envision false bad scenarios because they graft capitalist principles on aspects of our current mixed-economy and increasingly statist society that would not obtain in a free society.

 

[Gipper]

No, of course socialism isn't working in Venezuela. It hasn't worked anywhere else, so why would it work there?

Who are these "liberals" who love socialism and love Chavez? Do they really exist, or are they just a figment of your imagination?

Damn...are you really that clueless?

It is well known that many hollywood libs love Chavez. Do you even bother to keep up with what the Left is doing?

Read this and remember it is the tip of ice berg...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2801025.ece

 

[GenSeneca]

Then "socialism" in a "social system" context means that private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, which would describe every modern nation in the world, including South Korea (example of capitalism in the OP.)

Capitalism in a social system context, then, must mean the opposite: There is no social control over private property or the distribution of income.

False dilemma: two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.

Capitalism, in a social system context, means exactly what I said it means; a system based on individual rights and the private ownership of all property.

Such a nation does not exist, and never has, although 19th. century America came pretty close.

Indeed. America has come closer than any other nation in the history of the world to having a Capitalist system. If any nation in the world adopted a permanent Capitalist system, even if only on the federal level, that nation would undoubtedly become the single most prosperous nation in the history of the world.

Such a system would mean that if I wanted to have a toxic waste dump in my back yard, there would be nothing to stop me, correct?

What is to stop you from doing that right now? Answer: Absolutely nothing.

You could easily back a box truck full of toxic waste into your driveway, use a two-wheeler to haul 55 gallon drums to your back yard, and create your very own toxic waste dump. You could also walk next door and beat your neighbor to death, or hop in your car and rampage through the city taking out pedestrians... Truly, there is no system that can stop you from violating the rights of others.

Capitalism wouldn't create some magical force that could prevent you from violating the rights of others, it simply limits the role of government to protecting individual rights. So, in regard to your example, the only thing capable of stopping you is physical force. Laws are not physical force, they are merely words on paper.

It's the responsibility of police to provide the physical force necessary to enforce the law. Since the police in a Capitalist system wouldn't be busy enforcing a million laws unrelated to protecting individual rights, they'd be focused on stopping, even preventing, the violation of individual rights... That includes stopping, or preventing, you from creating a toxic waste dump in your back yard.

 

[GenSeneca]

Socialism means one thing - state ownership of the means of production and distribution.

In economic terms, yes. In terms of a social system, no... as I just pointed out.

Like capitalism, socialism is an an abstract idea...

I disagree. I see nothing abstract about Capitalism in regards to it being a social system. As for being an abstract idea where economic systems are concerned, Capitalism is not an economic system. Although the word Capitalism is often used in place of Free Market Economy, the two are separate concepts, Capitalism being the social system and a Free Market being the only economic system compatible with Capitalism. And there is nothing abstract about a Free Market Economy... A market can either be free, controlled, or mixed, and there is nothing abstract about any of those concepts, each has a pretty clear line of demarcation.

 

[PatrioticTriumph]

North and South Korea seen from satellite......

Communism is not synonymous with socialism. Your title is irrelevant to the picture.

All the references to Cuba, Soviet Russia, China and North Korea are not examples of socialism, but rather Communism and various forms (Maoism, Stalinism etc)

It's quite laughable, the majority of posts by Conservatives here are an attempt to link the word "socialism" with actual Communist (and formerly communist) nations. While at the same time they use the word to describe such things as universal health care, welfare etc. A more fitting comparison for you then would be the majority of Western European nations, and the majority of the developed and industrialized nations in the world for that matter (since socialized medicine an universal health care is implemented in every single developed nation in the world).

In any case, it's a classic example of word misuse in an attempt to mislead and over-simplify one's perspective of a complex issue.

 

[Rick]

Communism is not synonymous with socialism. Your title is irrelevant to the picture.

Actually, (and I'm beginning to see a pattern here ) you don't know what you're talking about - the only socialist systems that have existed have been communist, therefore being socialist appears to be inseparable with being communist.