Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et

I think we are what we decide to..
..as singles and as people!

I think capitalism has right ideas and wrong ideas in it, as communism and as social democracy..

All this ideologies are now dead or in graet crisis, so we have a chance to think sommething else.
As I said yesterday, we do not have to imagine the ingredients of this new cake, we must think about what to put into and what not, and how to mix them!
This new cake, that will come out, won't be perfect, but surely con be better than the one we're eating now!

Calling France almost communism is really strange. Communism is about total control, not about regulation like Social democracies does.

And capitalism has to be regulated or else all money goes to the rich (but maybe this is a personal opinion, but the US is a good example of a to free market).

Greece

What happened to Greece is a lot more complicated as what you write in here. A culture of not paying taxes; 50% of the Greeks were officials, working for the state, that's way to much; lie about the financial situation of the country so no other country could help in time; etc etc ...
(editado)

No Charles, if there is capitalism without stupid state control case "Greece" would never exist.
But nobody in EU worry about state bankruptcy...and that is bad.

And I read that France has also some big "planning" state institution, maybe they use a lot of regulation to support their plans, but this is really too close to communism :-). communism = plans :-)

Read a bit more about and you will find out it's all a lot more complicated. Also read more about communism and you will see it's about total control, planning is nothing more as a tool.

communism = plans

well it's wrong.
communism is no private property, no free enterprise..etc..

state plans is a way to govern that is used in every kind of economic system..

So huge planning by state is bad, it has nothing to do with competion - motor of capitalism.

I know it, I lived in communism.

Plans for all Cccp/Ussr killed competiton also in not private sector. Also in common ownership of property is competition but huge and strict plans kill it. No competition, no individual progress, no high productivity.

Depends totally on what is controlled by the state. Education, health care, child care, social security, consumer protections, labor rights, environmental protection etc., all good if this is controlled by the state if you ask me. These things should not be (completely) open to free market and profits, this will turn out into a Class society and that's not what we want, at least I don't want it. Ofcourse there will always be a bit of a Class society, but that's ok, to much is not ok.

A private sector and ownership are a few of the first signs of a failing communist system.

No competition, no individual progress, no high productivity.
1 of the main reasons of this is all companies are owned and controlled by the state and everyone got their money anyways.

So again, it's much more complicated as you write it down. You make everything look way to simple, but it isn't.

(editado)

I was talking just about bussiness areas...

I lived in communism and I know from my parents how state companies and departments was trying to compete to make "party" happy. But they were competeing in accomplishing plans and all their competition in various areas (which was good) was stopped due to it was not in plan.

dont think that there is not competition in communism, otherwise you are wrong and doesnt know comunism. But that competiton is slower and less efficient like in capitalism.


written on mobile on taking care of children :)

The competition as capitalism and communism as plan isnt completely wrong comparision, but well..

The main thing was control. Control over economy, control over society, control over everything.
Marx has naievely belived in something else, he thought that all problems in society, all politics and such are only because class struggle. After removing classes=politics, civil society, production not issue for anybody, it were just superstructures of class system. Women will be for everyone, everybody will do what he want (working just for work, not for products/services), everybody will get what he wants.. In reality politicans and leaders havent disapeared, they took total control and purged opponents. Family hasnt disapeared and became island of safety in socialist madness and production became more important than before because need of show how succesfull new system is (here are plans). People still wanted freedom, still had different opinions, so was needed extraordinary violence of state. Since then, all people had to follow regime by method of carrot and stick. Difference between utophia and reality became obvious which led through "goulash socialism and consumption communism" to collapse.

Againist control is free will and choice.
Freedom in society and economy is value of western civilization. While it seems as positive value, for somebody it shall not. Choices are more demanding on human, they are not clear as orders and give responsibility to him and not to someone else - he should fail because bad choice. It seems that some people want rather for "common good" to order people act according negative liberty (you cant do anything except...X you shall do what you want except...). Democracy is not condition of capitalism, but free market is condition of democracy without doubt.

Democracy is not condition of capitalism, but free market is condition of democracy without doubt.

well..
What do you intend for free market?

if you think of a completely liberistic sistem, well... I don't think so..
I think that only a free market with a solid rules sistem can lead to democracy.
In fact the liberistic countries are democracies only by name..

Rules on a free market system can be used in various ways:

- to balance the externalities (in a free market nobody pays for enviroment-damages)
- to protect the weaker (in a free market kid can be used as worker)
- to achieve strategic objectives (f.e. using incentives you can promote renewable energy with an advantage in the future..)
- to save people serious damage caused by temporary problems (f. e. paying a portion of income for a system of guarantees in the event of job loss)
- to protect consumer from the presence in the market of harmful goods (food rules)
- to protect democracy form information monopolies (subsidies and rules of pluralism)

and so on..
democracy can not run without some prerequisites, and I think that a completely free system leads not to guarantee the existence of these..

(but if you think that free market is the one where people can have their own business venture, without trying to direct people as if they were children.. I agree with you!)

I agree. I mean common definition, state doesnt say what you have to produce and how much, where you will work, for which wage, dont choose prices of products or where will be sold.

and the winner is clearly; capitalism! As it brought freedom AND human rights to the people, whereas Communism failed bigtime and killed most of its citizens, litterally or mentally.

so als in this discussion I can call the winners; Red and Mitch69, supporting and pitching for Capitalism, using standard universal language and theories and facts...
All others are the losers here as they try to make up their own stories and or instance compare USA/USSR and state that both states had their flaws...yes sure, there was just only a tiny difference?

It is clealry the same mistakes made by the many Occupy Movement followers...on the one hand thet hate the rich and the "capitalists and capitalism a a system"....on the other hand they carry their cellphones orI-pods and watch movies from millionair "friends" like Michael Moore or Al Gore.

Get a grip on your own life youngmen!
don't be predictable!