I don't quite understand the way in which many people talk about capitalism and socialism. I don't think anybody that has a good understanding of both would say that they are 100% capitalist or 100% socialist. Every good country in the world, if not every country in the world has elements of both. Also, both can be put in to practice succsefully or unsuccessfully. It seems to me that a good amount of people claim to support one, but are against the other. Is anybody else bothered by this?
Only fools do not realize the degrees to which we have mixed the two, in ways that in a few cases even predated Marx himself. Socialism and capitalism are blackberry brambles so intertwined both above and below the soil it is virtually impossible to separate them in any western country. its just that socialists and capitalists disagree about what is a thorn, a blossom, a leaf or a fruit when looking at the beast of tangles..
Right-wingers are taught the U.S. system of capitalism is the only acceptable economic standard. Our system can lean towards socialism, but only to benefit the fat cats. Other Western nations successfully blend capitalism and socialism, but those are countries that refuse to allow the massive influence of billionaires and war profiteers to control their governments. Eventually, the conservatives' and neoconservatives' need to serve the very rich, Big Business, and especially the war profiteers, will break this country, in the same manner as the Soviet Union's runaway defense spending overwhelmed and destroyed that nation.
Obligatory reference to corporate fat cats. No they don't. It is impossible to blend a rigidly collectivist ideology with a rigidly individualist one. Government ≠ socialism. Obligatory reference to billionaires and "war profiteers". As someone who actually understands what those words mean, this is one of the most annoying things about your posts. The term "Neoconservative" refers to anyone who switched from being a liberal to being a conservative. Hillary Clinton has received more money from big business than any other candidate. Communism killed the Soviet Union, not defense spending. If they had a sustainable economic system, they would have survived.
There is a real reason certain politicians push for cuts in education funding. And they "will never have the smart elite". They can only pull the wool over the eye's of the uneducated. This MASSIVE fact that not many have done one days research on the difference between Socialism/Communism/Capitalism/Democracy/Republic/Green/Libertarian/Federalist/Non-Federalist blows my mind. It's easy if you just follow a group and not try to learn about the others. America 2015. Then you can be a parrot for that group and repeat.
I have to tell you, I'm more alarmed at the Democrats that have never seen true Democracy that think they need Socialism more than anything. We are a Republic even after the War. We rely on Politicians, which is not a Democratic way. True Democracy is EVERY VOTE. Not every vote in the STATE has to give over power to ONE corrupt politician.
Or sometimes throwing money at things doesn't work. Example A. Baltimore Example B. Detroit Example C. Chicago Three of the top funded education systems in the US, guess how poorly their students do.
I'm fully aware of the skewed graphs certain groups use on this topic to make YOU think "education is free!". I'm fully aware of the party that uses these graphs to convince YOU that Less$ better education. #ChalkBoard vs. Internet......................... I won't get into oppressed classes that were not allowed education and the result today, I'll let you catch up on your own Why can't blacks swim? Because they were not allowed in pools decades ago! OMG. old news..
Information Currently two opposite groups and one day one united group? But it is the information that was hammered in their minds (via politics and media) that shouldn't be there (all 'ism' terms were masterminded) Because self-thinking individuals cannot become political opposites or be united so easily. Information from outside society has influenced people's way of thinking for a century currently. People think inside the box because the information comes out of a box (tv) Very hard to think outside the box. Psychology. People speak about 'socialism' and 'capitalism' the way they do, because of the fact that the mind is surviving in nature and humans live in groups (in a group is more safety and strenght), so a though process is an emotion, a feeling that the 'socialist' thoughts are different from the 'capitalist' thoughts. Behind emotion is a deeper psychological process (psychopatic vs psychophobic, two kinds of fears) If 'socialists' have a more psychopatic mind, than 'capitalists' can have a more psychophobic mind (not that they are dangerous psychopats or psychophobes, but every human has some of that fear inside, because the human mind is surviving in nature)
Money is only one factor, but it is indeed a factor. Massachusetts, for example, spends more than Alabama and has a better outcome, but they also run much more competent schools up there that'd probably run better even with less cash because their structure and model is much better.
This myth bothers me. It also bothers me that an endless amount of people a serial offenders of the "middleground" fallacy, which states that the middle ground between two options must be the correct answers. Let me put it blunty: The USSR had a socialist economy. It does not work. It simply doesn't, and there are plenty of empirical and theoretical evidence to support that. And no, countries like Sweden are not socialist. We have a free market and a capitalist economy. There are so many outright false claims, confusion of terms, and logical errors going on when discussing socialism.
I'm not saying that the middle ground is always correct, but rather that every country has both capitalist and socialist aspects to it. Sweden is a democratic socialist country that is both very capitalist and very socialist. Even the U.S. which is probably the most capitalist country in the world has quite a bit of socialism.
Sweden is not a democratic socialist country, never has been. Yes, all countries have elements of both, but that is misleading. If a country just has 1% socialism and 99% capitalist, it is misleading to refer to it as both socialist and capitalist. The proportions matter. A capitalist country is one which is mostly capitalist, not fully capitalist.
I think Scandinavia has a pretty even mix of capitalism and socialism. Whatever you want to label it, it seems to work pretty well. Because of that I just don't think it's fair to say socialism doesn't work. Capitalism can't work on its own, so I think that people that say socialism is bad, should at least instead say something along the lines of too much socialism is bad. The same with capitalism.
Hell no, especially not today. And we've been moving more towards the capitalist side since the 90's, as has the rest of europe. Sweden scores only a little bit below the USA in economic freedom. We have amongst the freest economies in the world. You can call it many things, but not socialism, because the means of production are, and always have been, in private hands, and the markets are free. But the scandinavian countries are not examples of successful socialism. Quite frankly, there are no examples of successful socialism at all, due to that failure is inherent in socialism, but if you want examples of socialist economies, look at the USSR and look at former PRC. Look at Cuba. Those are real socialist economies. Well, that depends on what you mean by socialism. If we take the welfare state to be socialist, which I think is wrong because both conservatives and liberals have supported it historically, one could certainly consider that to be a good socialist feature. But in terms of purely economic policies, there really isn't anything good that comes from socialism.
