Capitalism or Socialism

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:51 am

Sorry there is no middle ground

Guido · Post by **Guido** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:55 am

Dust Devil wrote:Sorry there is no middle ground

Actually there is, but I'm not surprised that you can't see that.

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:02 am

Sorry DD,

Gotta disagree. Too far to the left is bad, too far to the right is bad. One has the State controlling your every move, the other has the Corporation controlling your every move. Totally against human nature, and neither one in its pure form will last very long.

The only pure example in the world I can think of is maybe North Korea, but I'm sure there's some kind of black market economy going on there.

-istp

... · Post by **...** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:46 am

Guido wrote:
Dust Devil wrote:Sorry there is no middle ground
Actually there is, but I'm not surprised that you can't see that.

....what he said.

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:02 pm

ISTP, how does the state control your every move in a socialist state???

But anyhoot, I hate social programs.... But an extreme socialist society would be better....

OR

an Extreme Capitalist, but again, stupid society will never allow that...

So, if you could get rid of all the bs, laws, regulations, bureaucrats Capitalism, all the way, woohooo.. =)

But if you want to give someone AA and let them get a nice job over the next guy, fark you, if you want to give AA to everyone and everyone can do whatever they want, woohooo.. =) And we're all equals and get "paid" the same and get the same vacation time etc as the next guy, woohoo to socialism...

and Guido and Birddog, sorry you're both wrong, no middle ground, DD is correct, if you have a mix state, people will complain...

... · Post by **...** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:21 pm

cyyz wrote:
and Guido and Birddog, sorry you're both wrong, no middle ground, DD is correct, if you have a mix state people will complain...

state people will complain??

I'm not sure if it has changed...but last time I heard...elected officials work for us, the people of Canada. So...if they complain or not, they are paid a good salary during and after their time in public office.

So I don't care if they complain. In fact...I'd rather not hear it. Do the job or move over.

Glory. · Post by **Glory.** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:16 pm

If we're looking at the entire world to have a complete universal capitalistic society, then I will give the entire earth like one year to support us then we are all going to die.

But to be technical, either extremity is never going to happen. Not only because certain people dont want it to, but because it is literally physically impossible.

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:33 pm

I am Birddog wrote:
cyyz wrote:
and Guido and Birddog, sorry you're both wrong, no middle ground, DD is correct, if you have a mix state , people will complain...
state people will complain??

I'm not sure if it has changed...but last time I heard...elected officials work for us, the people of Canada. So...if they complain or not, they are paid a good salary during and after their time in public office.

So I don't care if they complain. In fact...I'd rather not hear it. Do the job or move over.

Ya Volt mein leiuten... I've corrected my grammatical error, sorry. But in a mixed state what we have a mix of socialism and capitalism, we have both supporters complaining, I don't get free cash from the gov't I have to work, farking welfare, and if I want to start a business we have so much bureaucratic bs and hoops you need to jump through that capitalism isn't "capitalism" either.... So no one is happy in our society a mix of both socialism and capitalism we are the "middle ground" and it sucks...

But to be technical, either extremity is never going to happen. Not only because certain people dont want it to, but because it is literally physically impossible.

I think it would be possible, and it would work but you'd need one fascist group to kill those who complain in either society capitalists, you'd always have the whinning poor and in a socialist society you'd always have the greedies, so kill them and you have a nice extreme utopia...

Floats · Post by **Floats** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:45 pm

capitalism has been pretty successful. socialism has failed miserbly.

so it may not be perfect, its better than those damn commies

floats

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:50 pm

Guido wrote:Actually there is, but I'm not surprised that you can't see that.

I said there is no middle ground!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

x-wind · Post by **x-wind** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:11 pm

Either way, someone needs to regulate things like natural resources extraction and put money into not for profit science. Also education is pretty expensive and a scary proposition if you do not have rich or well off parents (in my case I thank the oil patch).

Sweden is a country that shows capitalism and socialism can work.

What is the difference between socialism to communism if you do not have any private enterprise

Just being democratic? Or wage variation?

What is the difference between Capitalism and Fascism (in the US)

You get to vote for one of two people instead of having the republican automatically win.

- There is no middle ground......

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:18 pm

x-wind wrote: Sweden is a country that shows capitalism and socialism can work.

That is true, but they've managed to keep their scandals to a minimum, they didn't order 2000 computers for 150 million dollars. They didn't spend 250 million to keep the minority happy with ads. Or a 20 million dollar Governor General.... Or create a department that costs 100 million to track down 100 thousand dollars in welfare fraudsters...

It's a country where they seem to have the "right" people in the right places that make the "right" decisions....

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:59 pm

x-wind wrote: Sweden is a country that shows capitalism and socialism can work.

Sweden Sucks.

x-wind · Post by **x-wind** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:13 pm

Do scandles outway principle(s)? Is that the deciding question?

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:19 pm

x-wind wrote:Do scandles outway principle(s)? Is that the deciding question?

Yes, because the principles are there, but the people who are either ignorant or corrupt are the ones who implement it here in canada.

Sure the keep quebecers happy ads "make sense" but not at that price.

Sure it was to send ex-GG around the world to "promote canada" but not for 20 million dollars...

Ofcourse city hall needed computers but is it a good deal to buy them for 150 million dollars just because you can have dinner at the keg with Tie Domi's brother??

Or cancel helicopters at higher cost then it would be to purchase them? Spend 1 billion instead of paying 500 million for choppers???

Our bureaucrats are either stupid or corrupt and some are both...

Poor us. =(

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:33 pm

cyyz wrote:ISTP, how does the state control your every move in a socialist state???

Good point. I guess you could take a shit and Big Brother wouldn't find out. But we've got flat screen TVs selling like hotcakes. They probably have cameras in them too to transmit through your cable TV to CSIS. So maybe they CAN tell if you take a shit!

And don't get me started on Chemtrails!

Sorry, I've been reading too many swede posts.

-istp

sakism · Post by **sakism** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:41 pm

Socialism (definition three from Merriam-Webster):

...a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

We already live in a socialist country. We have a state military, public health-care, public education, free roads and bridges, libraries, etc.

By definition, pure captalism would make government superfulous. And without government you have anarachy. Pure communism would make the individual superfulous, and without individuality their would be a stagnation and decay of society - leading to anarchy.

So, the reality of the question is that there is only a middle ground, there can be no existing in either of the extremes. Socialism is this middle ground. Just because we are not running it as efficiently as we could doesn't mean it isn't the best way.

x-wind · Post by **x-wind** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:17 pm

Perfect, so everybody that wanted to vote for the middle ground but thought there was not a choice should vote for socialism! (do not be affraid it is merely a word)

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:50 pm

sakism wrote:
So, the reality of the question is that there is only a middle ground

No!!!

sakism · Post by **sakism** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:06 pm

x-wind wrote:Perfect, so everybody that wanted to vote for the middle ground but thought there was not a choice should vote for socialism! (do not be affraid it is merely a word)

Not even sure what you mean - but no one in Canada has a choice to not vote for socialism. Canada has a socialist government. All the Canadian parties are socialist.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:32 pm

For those of you who voted for socialism you need to take a trip to the former Socialist republics in Europe...

That may change your mind when you see the difference as you cross into those countries.

sakism · Post by **sakism** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:17 pm

The problem with the former eastern European "Socialist" countries is that they were not really socialist countries.

Just the same way that East Germany or the German Democratic Republic was neither a republic nor a democracy.

Expat · Post by **Expat** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 5:58 am

Sorry Cat, but it takes more than a trip to understand the benefits or disadvantages of socialism. You have to live there, talk to people, learn about the economy, etc.
I happen to spend a lot of my time in ex-USSR countries, an my knowledge of the system is beginning to influence my perception about the communist system.
The main criticism about socialism is that it does not care about the individual, only about the system. But the whole system is geared towards doing everything for the individual. Subsidized transport, housing, education,medicare, etc.
The infrastuctures built by the soviets everywhere are awesome! Everyone has good electricity, cable TV, drinking water, good roads, airports, trains. In all the countries, rich or poor. The system was never too concerned with cost effectiveness. It was in the plan, and had to be done. No stupid exercises like the closure of Mirabel airport!
People now are beginning to feel the strain caused by the free market economy, which causes inflation and makes things like travel too expensive. In the new open society, the government has stopped controlling prices, and many goods connot be afforded by the poorer people.
My feeling is that it is not going to get better, because the poor will never get increases in their salaries and pension, and will get poorer. Most are already regretting the good old days when the government took care of them.
I would not think of throwing the baby with the bath water in this case. There can be a lot of good in a socialist state. They say that Canada is better than the US because of our socialist tendencies. We take better care of our poor, sick, and elderly. Our education system is affordable, and offers great opportunities.
Great debate!

Cheers,

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:46 am

A mixed economy is always best with a government that falls on the small c conservative point on the political spectrum. So if the original question can be characterized as right of centre being capitalist, and left of centre being socialist, and nobody is permitted to fence sit, then a capitalist I am.

just another pilot · Post by **just another pilot** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 5:17 pm

clearly DD is a dictator...