• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Socialism vs. Capitalism

Which do you Prefer


  • Total voters
    57
A balance between the two that works for almost all of the people, so, as usual - no vote.. No system will be effective for 100% of the people, so the economic system will have to be in a state of flux, constantly changing. Our health care is not nearly as socialistic as it should be..For people to profit from man's ill fortune is not right.
 
I voted an economy with more Capitalism than Socialism and I mean ALOT MORE capitalism, my reasoning is simple, its become impossible to ever have a totallly capitalist society.

We all know or should that an entirely socialized society will fail, they always have. If everyone worked for the Govt that means the Govt giveth and the govt taketh back, therefore perpetuating itself, making everyone equal and govt all powerful...thats just not for me not now not ever.
 
This poll is deceiving because you cannot have a socialist government and capitalist government working together as a single body. It's either socialism or capitalism, there is no idealist 'perfect' world where socialism and capitalism can work together under the same government.

Socialism and capitalism have been working quite well in our nation, despite the political party of no, for many years.
Perfect?
Far from it, we must keep on working at it, those who care about their nation, anyway, the conservatives...I do not know about.
 
The whole Capitalism versus Socialism debate is absurd and I think only really ignorant people take part in it. In the modern global market, a mixed economy is essential to survival. I can't believe that there are people out there who still hold the elementary school conception that China is a communist country and the United States is a capitalist country. There are very few nations on this planet that don't have a heavily regulated capitalistic system in place. The debate is no longer about whether or not there should be regulation, but how much regulation there should be. This I totally agree with, the last few sentences..
This post is being assigned the opposite of a "thanks".
People who know of and practice civility and respect should be the only debaters or emoters, since I see little actual debate here.
 
Socialism and capitalism have been working quite well in our nation, despite the political party of no, for many years.
Perfect?
Far from it, we must keep on working at it, those who care about their nation, anyway, the conservatives...I do not know about.

Providing Police and Fire protections and road and infrastructure improvements are govts role, Protecting the nation <military> is govts role.....keeping its citizens from starving and malais and disasters is the govts role...
Buying Car Companies, bank takeovers, running insurance companies and Factories and ordering its citizens to BUY INSURANCE or anything else.. is not their role and I will fight against that and vote against that till i take my last breath.
The party of everything we want is good and we MUST have..should just go sit in a corner and do what they do best...roll a fatty, denounce and insult anyone that doesnt think like them
 
Last edited:
Would you like me to explain why it fell apart?

A most legit question.:mrgreen:
I think communism was far too repressive, which smothered the morale and capabilities of man... The sun is still not shining on Russia, but the pall has been removed.
 
This is exactly right. Large corporations use campaign donations to get lawmakers in their pockets and write laws favorable to the large corporations. Such laws can favor corporations over consumers or smaller upstarts competing with the established corporations.

Also, lawmakers can make government contracts with the large corporations who donate to them. This leads to a system of corporate welfare in which businesses and industries are reliant upon government contracts to earn a profit.

And these are the reasons for campaign finance reform. I fee that our government should handle this via the tax payers money...This is so big that it may never come into total fruitation...
Just, no more millions of dollars spent on long winded wasteful campaigns.
Sixty days, $100,000 tops, possible???
 
This poll is deceiving because you cannot have a socialist government and capitalist government working together as a single body. It's either socialism or capitalism, there is no idealist 'perfect' world where socialism and capitalism can work together under the same government.

I think history has proven you wrong many many times.
 
Socialism forces people to provide means to others.
This is slavery, and is the antithesis of liberty.

Capitalism is the economic outgrowth of human nature. So long as the rights of the people under capitalism are protected from those who would prey upon them, capitalism is the ideal system, as everyone succeeds according his own abilities.
 
Socialism forces people to provide means to others.
This is slavery, and is the antithesis of liberty.

I'm not socialist, but I know this is absurd.

Capitalism is the economic outgrowth of human nature. So long as the rights of the people under capitalism are protected from those who would prey upon them, capitalism is the ideal system, as everyone succeeds according his own abilities.

Why is that ideal? What about people who don't have abilities, because they can't afford a good education, or are disabled, etc?
 
I'm not socialist, but I know this is absurd.
It is a succinct and accurate description of the welfare state, a necessary component of socialism.

Why is that ideal?
As I said -- it is an outgrowth of human nature, in that everyone naturally does whatever he thinks is in his best interest.

What about people who don't have abilities, because they can't afford a good education, or are disabled, etc?
What about them?
More specifically, how to they have a right to the fruits of osmeone elses' labor?

You have the right to pursue happiness. You have no right to expect success in that pursuit other than that which you, yourself, can provide. That your pursuit leaves you with a standard of living that someone finds unacceptable in no way creates a burden on me.
 
Last edited:
This poll is deceiving because you cannot have a socialist government and capitalist government working together as a single body. It's either socialism or capitalism, there is no idealist 'perfect' world where socialism and capitalism can work together under the same government.

Sure there is. The United States has always had elements of both.

The reality is, pure Socialism and pure Capitalism never really work.
 
In a purely Socialistic system - all work for the benefit of the state and it is up to the state to supply the needs of the people.


In a purely Capitalistic system - all work for the benefit of the corporation and it is up to the corporation to supply the needs of the people.
 
This is exactly right. Large corporations use campaign donations to get lawmakers in their pockets and write laws favorable to the large corporations. Such laws can favor corporations over consumers or smaller upstarts competing with the established corporations.

Also, lawmakers can make government contracts with the large corporations who donate to them. This leads to a system of corporate welfare in which businesses and industries are reliant upon government contracts to earn a profit.

Gosh, if only the voters have 100% of the power to elect people no matter what anyone spends. :roll:
 
It is a succinct and accurate description of the welfare state, a necessary component of socialism.

It's not at all accurate, and welfare isn't a necessary component of socialism, and socialism is much more than welfare.

What about them?
More specifically, how to they have a right to the fruits of osmeone elses' labor?

I didn't say they have a right to it, nor am I endorsing socialism as the solution. I am asking why you think leaving those people out is an "optimal" system. Not optimal for them.
 
In a purely Capitalistic system - all work for the benefit of the corporation and it is up to the corporation to supply the needs of the people.
This is false.
All work for the benefit of themsleves. They might work for a corporation; if they do, they do it to benefit themselves.
It is up to the people to supply their own needs.
 
It's not at all accurate, and welfare isn't a necessary component of socialism, and socialism is much more than welfare.
The welfare state -isnt- a necessary component of socialim?
Where, exactly, has that ever been the case?
What then of 'from each according to his means to each according to his needs'?
:doh

I didn't say they have a right to it, nor am I endorsing socialism as the solution. I am asking why you think leaving those people out is an "optimal" system. Not optimal for them.
Simple -- your life is your responsibility, not mine.
 
Simple -- your life is your responsibility, not mine.

So capitalism isn't optimal.
 
So capitalism isn't optimal.
How so? Capitalism demands that you take responsibility for your own life, and that your success is based on your commitment to same.
 
I dont want to be nit-picking or derail the thread, but what the USSR had was not pure Socialism. It was Communism which IS different from Socialism.

Not according to my good friend from Kazan. She laughs when we (Americans) call the former USSR communist. Communism was their goal, they were still pretty far away from achieving it.
 
It's not at all accurate, and welfare isn't a necessary component of socialism, and socialism is much more than welfare.

Welfare is socialistic in concept and action. It takes from the whole to distribute as the state sees fit. It takes away from the successful and productive to give to the unsuccessful. It is in opposition to the laws of nature, thus long term, will not work.
 
How so? Capitalism demands that you take responsibility for your own life, and that your success is based on your commitment to same.

No, it is your commitment as limited by your ability. If you are disabled, for instance, and can't work, all the commitment in the world won't help you one bit.

(Again I remind you that I am not a socialist and don't advocate a total socialist system as the solution).
 
Welfare is socialistic in concept and action. It takes from the whole to distribute as the state sees fit. It takes away from the successful and productive to give to the unsuccessful. It is in opposition to the laws of nature, thus long term, will not work.

I am not defending welfare. I don't think welfare is socialism, not the way we use the term.
 
I am not defending welfare. I don't think welfare is socialism, not the way we use the term.

Just because the way we use the term may not "mean" socialism, it's still socialism in action.

edit:
We dont have public ownership of goods and services, for the most part, but via taxes, the government is distributing the goods and services of the private sector according to what the state thinks is fair and equitable. If the government were only in the business of providing funding for what was originally intended, then you could say otherwise, but government is not using tax receipts to benefit all citizens equally. They are using the labor of you and me to benefit special interests.
 
Last edited:
No, it is your commitment as limited by your ability. If you are disabled, for instance, and can't work, all the commitment in the world won't help you one bit.
Assuming for the moment that this is -necessarily- true, how does fact that some people will fail that mean the system isnt optimal?

"Optimal" doesn't neceeistate that -everyone- succeeds to a level that -some- people would like.
 
Back
Top Bottom