Does anyone here actually prefer pure socialism over

[theking]

...capitalism? If so would you explain why?

[Machete_]

If there were socialism, there might be beathpanels, and then you wouldent be able to post here... it would be the only reason for me to consider it

[Libertine]

It completely depends on your definitions of socialism and capitalism.

Do you mean marxist socialism, communist socialism, contemporary Western European socialism (the parties that call themselves socialist, that is), socialism as in social democracy, socialism as in Rawlsian social liberalism? All of them are very common uses of the term these days.

As for capitalism, that too can mean many things. On the extreme, you have the truly minimal state, where even institutions like the police force are privatized. On the more moderate side, you have social liberalism.

These days, both terms have become so convoluted that they are almost useless for any purposes other than propaganda.

[Armand Baron]

This is very interesting yet please know that there has never been a pure ideology established anywhere, ever. There is no pure socialism or democracy for that matter. There are leaders that manipulate these ideas and govern with them as they see fit or to gain the profits or goals of the interested parties that finance these governments. I prefer freedom from ideologies and freedom to choose and express myself.

[Darkland]

I don't think it has as much to do with the ideology of the ism but more so in what ways people in power will corrupt or abuse them.

[theking]

Originally Posted by Libertine

It completely depends on your definitions of socialism and capitalism.

Do you mean marxist socialism, communist socialism, contemporary Western European socialism (the parties that call themselves socialist, that is), socialism as in social democracy, socialism as in Rawlsian social liberalism? All of them are very common uses of the term these days.

As for capitalism, that too can mean many things. On the extreme, you have the truly minimal state, where even institutions like the police force are privatized. On the more moderate side, you have social liberalism.

These days, both terms have become so convoluted that they are almost useless for any purposes other than propaganda.

You are correct. There are to many labels to deal with..I am referring to state owned/controlled as opposed to private ownership/controlled.

[Armand Baron]

Hey, I really dig your comment. Non-confrontational and informative. Right on!

[nation-x]

Originally Posted by theking

...capitalism? If so would you explain why?

Umm... we have been a Socio-Capitalist since the New Deal.

[czarina]

let's not be too radical.. both systems have their good and their bad things. As long as medicine and education are free for those who can't afford the private options, BUT there is a private option available, I'm happy!

[Armand Baron]

Most of the times these two entities, private and state, end up being hooked to the same source. Its very creepy yet true. For example, the federal reserve. Is it state or private?

[Dcat]

Originally Posted by Libertine

It completely depends on your definitions of socialism and capitalism.

Do you mean marxist socialism, communist socialism, contemporary Western European socialism (the parties that call themselves socialist, that is), socialism as in social democracy, socialism as in Rawlsian social liberalism? All of them are very common uses of the term these days.

As for capitalism, that too can mean many things. On the extreme, you have the truly minimal state, where even institutions like the police force are privatized. On the more moderate side, you have social liberalism.

These days, both terms have become so convoluted that they are almost useless for any purposes other than propaganda.

You nailed it.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by theking

You are correct. There are to many labels to deal with..I am referring to state owned/controlled as opposed to private ownership/controlled.

The problem is that any good system will consist of a mixture of both.

Courts, the police force, the military, at least part of the education system, part of the healthcare system - things like those need to be controlled by the state.

On the other hand, private enterprise is both the lifeblood of a healthy economy and a necessity for freedom.

I think the true question isn't which you choose, but where you draw the line. And since democracy is by definition constantly in motion, even in a well-functioning democratic state you will always have a constant shifting and redrawing of that line.

[Bill8]

It's a stupid formulation of a stupider question, and only a fool or a propagandist would seriously propose it as a legitimate question.

It's idiotic at it's root, meanspirited and pointless whining.

Anyone with any sense of the real already understands that all our existing functioning governmental systems are combinations of capitalism and socialism.

I empathized with you about your dog, but everything else you say sounds like it's coming from the mouth of a 14 year old. A whiney 14 year old who does poorly in school. And who wouldn't even know what "civics" meant.

Time to hit the ffvb. No more whining propaganda from theking.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7023

[theking]

Originally Posted by Armand Baron

This is very interesting yet please know that there has never been a pure ideology established anywhere, ever. There is no pure socialism or democracy for that matter. There are leaders that manipulate these ideas and govern with them as they see fit or to gain the profits or goals of the interested parties that finance these governments. I prefer freedom from ideologies and freedom to choose and express myself.

I should have explained what I meant by "pure socialism"...which is everything is government owned/controlled.

[Agent 488]

national bolshevism 4 life.

[DWB]

Does it really matter? Whatever works is the best. I don't care what they call it.