The mentality of socialism versus capitalism

My subject matter mentioned the Democrat party not one single time

 

Look at the fifth word in your original post,

 

I just knew an American would eventually say this.
I hope you are being provocative.
I described some elements of French socialism in my "lengthy" post.
France is not a totalitarian communist country.

 

America is already hugely socialist.
I think a lot of posters from America really don’t know what socialist means.
They also weaponise words like Marxist (try asking which actual words written by Marx they know, or object to, or why they object to them), and Communist.
Although objecting to the word Communist is probably something to do with the war where the poorest country in the world beat the richest one, and they’re rather embarrassed by that.

 

Now you are trying to personalise a definition of a global economic system.
If you don't know it is highly nuanced, as are other global arrangements of a country including capitalism, fascism, democracy, nationalism, etc, then perhaps more research and less accusation might be useful.

Now which of these are you wanting to discuss?

• 1Early interpretations
• 2Differences between various schools
  • 2.1Theory
  • 2.2Practice
• 3Socialist planned economy
  • 3.1State-directed economy
  • 3.2Decentralized planned economy
• 4Market socialism
  • 4.1Socialist market economy
• 5Socialist ideologies
  • 5.1Utopian socialism
  • 5.2Communism
  • 5.3Marxism
    • 5.3.1Leninism and Marxism–Leninism
    • 5.3.2Stalinism
    • 5.3.3Maoism
    • 5.3.4Dengism
    • 5.3.5Trotskyism
    • 5.3.6Council communism and left communism
    • 5.3.7Autonomism
  • 5.4Anarchism
    • 5.4.1Mutualism
    • 5.4.2Collectivist anarchism
    • 5.4.3Anarcho-communism
    • 5.4.4Anarcho-syndicalism
    • 5.4.5Individualist anarchism
  • 5.5Democratic socialism
    • 5.5.1Social democracy
  • 5.6Eco-socialism
    • 5.6.1Green anarchism
  • 5.7Liberal socialism
    • 5.7.1Ethical socialism
  • 5.8Libertarian socialism
  • 5.9Regional socialism
    • 5.9.1Abertzale left
    • 5.9.2Arab socialism
    • 5.9.3Chinese and Vietnamese nationalist socialism
    • 5.9.4Irish republican socialism
  • 5.10Religious socialism
    • 5.10.1Buddhist socialism
    • 5.10.2Christian socialism
    • 5.10.3Islamic socialism
    • 5.10.4Jewish socialism
  • 5.11Syndicalism
• This is why I suggested a definition we can all discuss. They each define the role the state plays in the economy and ditto capitalism which also includes varying roles of the state in the economy. No variant is pure and most economies are a mix of the two...even I suggest, in the USA, which raises taxes and spends through a central source. Arguably that is socialism...support by the state. There is nothing wrong with socialism as long as it is accompanied by a strong democracy.

 

It is also a left-over from the Cold war and is a simple codified word that indicates "the enemy" or "the worst threat we can imagine so we have to tool up to avoid it".. The same one that Trump applauded of course.
The military and the defense industry appreciate the sentiment.

 

The if you can't define it, you can't discuss it. We end up discussing your image of it in your imagination and the possibility of redefining it at any time.

 

I think you have misunderstood my post which you quoted.
It is more common in Europe NOT to stress about material wealth.
The belief you describe was instituted by the Puritans who , as you say, saw wealth as influence and a sign of god's approval. An entire culture has developed out of that. Example of its stranglehold on US politics...it has been a long time since an American "everyman" has held high political office.

 

Well that COULD be communism in the raw.
The state does have some role in socialism...the degree to which it does, is why socialism is so nuanced and is what makes socialism DIFFERENT to communism.
Capitalism is also nuanced and also involves state direction via taxation, tariffs, quotas, international price setting, withholding exports to force political responses and trade deal details.

https://enorcerna.com/wiki/science/the-7-types-of-capitalism-and-their-characteristics/

I dispute the notion that under socialism, individuals expect the state to support them. Rather, they NEED the state to support them due to personal circumstances, some of which are the result of capitalist forces. In addition, many work "on the black" to supplement their state aid. As do some in a capitalist economy.

 

It is true there are many intellectually challenged out there .. some of which are American - but do not tar all Americans with the brush of a few moron's in the crowd

 

You don't seem to understand I'm not interested in defining it I'm well aware of what a socialist economic system consists of.

I'm more interested in the mentality of those who think it's such a great system.

Anyone who believes that poor black people can only make money by selling drugs has no business telling me what I do or do not understand.

 

The text book definition you posted - which is one of many- is what has no relation to any Western System.

 

Indeed I don't.
The whole thread was tainted by the OP objecting to long posts. There are intellectually challenged people across every part of the world.
I grew up in the US and still have many friends there. Some of the best education happens in the US and the huge technical advances there prove that the country is full of very clever people.

 

Black people selling drugs is not a definition of socialism. In fact one could argue that it is an example of raw capitalism...supply and demand valued by simple transactional agreements and untouched by any state interference (other than whether the activity is legal or not.)
In fact it is a more pure form of capitalism than auctions which involves state taxation.

You cannot discuss something without defining it when the subject is so various and nuanced.

 

Unfortunately -- while one can not generalize - it is true that the level of intelligence of the average American with respect to the world around them is woefully lacking. The population has been successfully dumbed down - most citizens having no idea of the principles on which the nation was founded.. what a constitutional republic is - never mind what terms like "Socialism" mean.

Have had many cry "NO NO NO" when informed that "Wealth Redistribution" is a core feature of Socialism .. and hence .. roads, infrastructure, military and so forth is paid for by "Socialism"

 

If it is any comfort to you, many British people are unaware of the reality of even fellow Europeans other than through the press and faulty assumptions sometimes defined by selective (and distorted) history.
It is one of the sources of Brexit and the tools politicians used to achieve that vote.
But that is another issue. Politicians across the world use the faulty knowledge of its citizens to "swing votes". And when citizens aren't really interested in politics, you can tell them anything. When they are overly cynical too, they don't listen.
But there are also times when people are very aware of the truth and it doesn't matter...ie the millions who marched against war with Iraq.
And finally it depend on schools to alert students at an early age (say mid teens) to spot the use of language and presentation in the media; There are timeworn tricks used to convince readers or viewers nad schools owe it to the next generation to show them how to be aware that they are being manipulated. Youtube is one huge example of edited, biased misinformation and has the added advantage of visual trickery.

 

This statement makes no sense.

What is?

Global arrangements of a country... What does that mean?

I'm talking about economics not things like democracy or nationalism it fascism. That isn't nuance that's muddying the water with of topic things.

• • Not interested in splitting hairs. I'm more of a big picture kind of guy.
  I presented one.
  In this regard I'm borderline Anarcho capitalist. The state shouldn't play any role the market and the wealth doesn't belong to them.
  If you define socialism to mean anything short of Anarcho capitalism then sure and I don't think any discussion between us will be productive if that's the case.

absolutely disagree. Democracy is tyranny. You can't have democracy that isn't strictly bridled and subjugated by a constitution if you did the US would be the dictatorship of California and new York. Democracy is one of the worst evils to come from humanity.

 

OK.
As you said, there is no mileage in discussing this with you further. We speak two different languages.

 

You actually believe that the only way poor blacks can make money is by selling drugs....think about that..

 

It would be interesting if you would tell us how you came to this conclusion when I discussed selling drugs as a capitalist activity in a discussion about economic systems and never mentioned whether black people are inevitably into the drugs business.
You are changing the subject again.

 

I'm not changing any subject.

I "came to this conclusion" because that is what you yourself said in this very thread.

You should give black folks more credit than that.

There are many blacks who Rose above their upbringings and poverty to go on to become successes in life without resorting to selling drugs.

It's sad that you think the only way they could make money is selling drugs.

 

The only sad thing here is your inability to figure out that people with little job opportunity are going to turn to selling drugs to make ends meet.

never mind the laughable necessary illusion that everyone can just "rise above" .. this is simplistic nonsense mate.

 

So you believe that statement too huh?

The person said that that's the only thing they can do. Words have meanings and those meanings matter.

Why would they have little job opportunity?

 

Believe what statement ? I did not say "Thats the only thing they can do" .. "Words have meaning" Go back and read my post again because you obviously were unable to understand the meaning the first time.

People have little opportunity for many reasons. but in reference to your above Strawman .. what part of the difference between "Little opportunity" and "No Opportunity" do you not understand ?

 

Are you chose to interject yourself into our conversation so I recommend if you insist on doing that you at least follow along