Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et
Capitalism is an economic system, socialism is a political ideology. You cannot combine them to make an economic system.
Capitalism is the single economic system that has proven to actually work (within a democracy).
---
what? You cannot split ideology and economy in this way, both capitalism and socialism are systems and ideologies at once.
Pure capitalism has never been proven to work well. It's an utopian idea, just like communism. What has worked is a combination of capitalism and socialism. To me, the Swedish system with a small rich-poor gap and a high overall living standard is the most superior system of all, whereas what they have in the US is not, imho, a humane system of government.
Capitalism is the single economic system that has proven to actually work (within a democracy).
---
what? You cannot split ideology and economy in this way, both capitalism and socialism are systems and ideologies at once.
Pure capitalism has never been proven to work well. It's an utopian idea, just like communism. What has worked is a combination of capitalism and socialism. To me, the Swedish system with a small rich-poor gap and a high overall living standard is the most superior system of all, whereas what they have in the US is not, imho, a humane system of government.
This combination is the worst. Rich people are giving social benefits for poor people who are voting thier party then, so they can steal everything through state finance.Rich people are buying poor people for "bread and games" so they can steal and people loved them.
Really the worst combination.
---
But what do you prefer? Rich people to steal everything _and_ not have to give benefits to the poor? My third point about 'fair reward of labour' is the key: it would mean that it's not just about benefits for the poor, but crucially about fair wages for those who work. Socialism was never about 'looking after the poor' - that's actually a Tory idea. It was mainly about fair reward of work.
I should have added as my fourth point 'a commitment to the support of scientific and artistic progress'. Because a human being needs in life (i) subsistence, (ii) companionship, (iii) freedom, (iv) science and (v) art.
Really the worst combination.
---
But what do you prefer? Rich people to steal everything _and_ not have to give benefits to the poor? My third point about 'fair reward of labour' is the key: it would mean that it's not just about benefits for the poor, but crucially about fair wages for those who work. Socialism was never about 'looking after the poor' - that's actually a Tory idea. It was mainly about fair reward of work.
I should have added as my fourth point 'a commitment to the support of scientific and artistic progress'. Because a human being needs in life (i) subsistence, (ii) companionship, (iii) freedom, (iv) science and (v) art.
(for example state companies, state restriction to market and so... it is not capitalism as it should be and it is made by socialism ideas, which change also economy system)
That's still capitalism. State capitalism. (In fact, one could say that the Soviet Union wasn't communist but state capitalist.)
---
yes, USSR was state capitalist. But I think that state capitalism is a necessary evil to socialists and social democrats, because certain organisations should not be run for profit - such as savings banks, hospitals, schools, transport and energy companies, basically anything whole failure would cause serious problems for the population.
If an organisation is run for profit, you have to be able to allow it to fail. But you cannot allow say a hospital to fail, so it should not be run for profit.
That's still capitalism. State capitalism. (In fact, one could say that the Soviet Union wasn't communist but state capitalist.)
---
yes, USSR was state capitalist. But I think that state capitalism is a necessary evil to socialists and social democrats, because certain organisations should not be run for profit - such as savings banks, hospitals, schools, transport and energy companies, basically anything whole failure would cause serious problems for the population.
If an organisation is run for profit, you have to be able to allow it to fail. But you cannot allow say a hospital to fail, so it should not be run for profit.
what? You cannot split ideology and economy in this way, both capitalism and socialism are systems and ideologies at once.
Sure you can.
Pure capitalism has never been proven to work well. It's an utopian idea, just like communism.
I never said pure capitalism has worked. I said capitalism has worked. Within capitalism, there is are degrees, going from state capitalism to pure capitalism.
What has worked is a combination of capitalism and socialism.
The socialist parties in the western world are capitalists. So yes, capitalism has proven to work.
To me, the Swedish system with a small rich-poor gap and a high overall living standard is the most superior system of all, whereas what they have in the US is not, imho, a humane system of government.
I prefer the Swedish system above the American system too, but that's not the point. The point is that both systems are capitalist systems.
Sure you can.
Pure capitalism has never been proven to work well. It's an utopian idea, just like communism.
I never said pure capitalism has worked. I said capitalism has worked. Within capitalism, there is are degrees, going from state capitalism to pure capitalism.
What has worked is a combination of capitalism and socialism.
The socialist parties in the western world are capitalists. So yes, capitalism has proven to work.
To me, the Swedish system with a small rich-poor gap and a high overall living standard is the most superior system of all, whereas what they have in the US is not, imho, a humane system of government.
I prefer the Swedish system above the American system too, but that's not the point. The point is that both systems are capitalist systems.
If an organisation is run for profit, you have to be able to allow it to fail. But you cannot allow say a hospital to fail, so it should not be run for profit.
But profit is still important. Of course, public schools aren't meant to be profitable on short term. That's impossible (unless you make education very expensive, which cannot lead to something good). But still, schools must try to do what they do in the most profitable way. Otherwise you end up in a situation of wasting money. A lot.
But profit is still important. Of course, public schools aren't meant to be profitable on short term. That's impossible (unless you make education very expensive, which cannot lead to something good). But still, schools must try to do what they do in the most profitable way. Otherwise you end up in a situation of wasting money. A lot.
But profit is still important. Of course, public schools aren't meant to be profitable on short term. That's impossible (unless you make education very expensive, which cannot lead to something good). But still, schools must try to do what they do in the most profitable way. Otherwise you end up in a situation of wasting money. A lot.
---
I strongly disagree - a school should never be run for profit. Because what's profitable and what's educationally good are two very different things.
This is part of the reason why in the UK education and higher education are going down the drain - because they are being turned from educational institutions into money-making enterprises. Let's not forget who produced the best specialists, still highly sought after - the USSR. I went to school there, and the level of quality was just not comparable to that in schools in the capitalist West.
---
I strongly disagree - a school should never be run for profit. Because what's profitable and what's educationally good are two very different things.
This is part of the reason why in the UK education and higher education are going down the drain - because they are being turned from educational institutions into money-making enterprises. Let's not forget who produced the best specialists, still highly sought after - the USSR. I went to school there, and the level of quality was just not comparable to that in schools in the capitalist West.
I strongly disagree - a school should never be run for profit.
Would you mind reading what I write? I never said schools schould be run for profit.
Let's not forget who produced the best specialists, still highly sought after - the USSR. I went to school there, and the level of quality was just not comparable to that in schools in the capitalist West.
Are you serious or not?
Would you mind reading what I write? I never said schools schould be run for profit.
Let's not forget who produced the best specialists, still highly sought after - the USSR. I went to school there, and the level of quality was just not comparable to that in schools in the capitalist West.
Are you serious or not?
well, it all depends on the definitions you make
to me, any party that attempts to redistribute money from the rich to the poor (through taxation, minimum/fair wage etc) is already in some way 'socialist'. And in every Western country that takes place. It's all a question of degree.
If Sweden is 'state capitalist', what is 'socialist' in your understanding?
to me, any party that attempts to redistribute money from the rich to the poor (through taxation, minimum/fair wage etc) is already in some way 'socialist'. And in every Western country that takes place. It's all a question of degree.
If Sweden is 'state capitalist', what is 'socialist' in your understanding?
to me, any party that attempts to redistribute money from the rich to the poor (through taxation, minimum/fair wage etc) is already in some way 'socialist'. And in every Western country that takes place. It's all a question of degree.
I agree.
If Sweden is 'state capitalist', what is 'socialist' in your understanding?
Once again, read what I write. I never said such nonsense.
I agree.
If Sweden is 'state capitalist', what is 'socialist' in your understanding?
Once again, read what I write. I never said such nonsense.
well, you said 'schools must try to do what they do in the most profitable way' :-P.
well, you said 'schools must try to do what they do in the most profitable way'
I did.
I did.
there is no point arguing about definitions - all you are trying to do is define a very large class of systems as 'capitalist' and conclude that 'capitalism works'.
well, yeah, sure. But then what's left?
well, yeah, sure. But then what's left?
therefore, in my opinion, they should be state-run
I'm not trying to do so. 'Capitalism' is a very wide system. You are just saying that anarcho capitalism (pure capitalism) doesn't work. I agree with that.
They shouldn't in my point of view. Everything that can be done in private at least as good as in public, should be done in private. In Flanders, most of the schools are not state-run (but they are being controlled by the state on education level (maths, languages, science, ...)).
(editado)
(editado)
I went to school there, and the level of quality was just not comparable to that in schools in the capitalist West.
R: Are you serious or not?
It is hard to compare. Students learnt much more in eastern schools, they were forced and they have discipline in the school so they really know more that students in western schools, but the problem was that 50-70% of content was useless, not usable for real life (I dont mean just that ideology subjects, a lot of others were just generally useless). Students in western school are really more lazy and learning less materials but they are learning important things which they can use in real life :-)
Oou schools (in central europe) are changing (or was changed in last 10 years) from eastern to western model. So I know it very good, I lived in both system and I was also 3 years teacher on university so I can say, that now - current students are more "stupid" but more "saucier?/rude" and better prepared for capitalism.
For example, I had economic secondary school. In years 1995-1999 and when I teach same student 7 years later on university (1st class), that students from same kind of school were really stupid and not well educated (I taught them on university I can compare) but they were more prepare/ready for real life, they have more courage and they like thinking "on their own / use own head and were not worry to tell their opinion" (in communism your own was opinion not important)
R: Are you serious or not?
It is hard to compare. Students learnt much more in eastern schools, they were forced and they have discipline in the school so they really know more that students in western schools, but the problem was that 50-70% of content was useless, not usable for real life (I dont mean just that ideology subjects, a lot of others were just generally useless). Students in western school are really more lazy and learning less materials but they are learning important things which they can use in real life :-)
Oou schools (in central europe) are changing (or was changed in last 10 years) from eastern to western model. So I know it very good, I lived in both system and I was also 3 years teacher on university so I can say, that now - current students are more "stupid" but more "saucier?/rude" and better prepared for capitalism.
For example, I had economic secondary school. In years 1995-1999 and when I teach same student 7 years later on university (1st class), that students from same kind of school were really stupid and not well educated (I taught them on university I can compare) but they were more prepare/ready for real life, they have more courage and they like thinking "on their own / use own head and were not worry to tell their opinion" (in communism your own was opinion not important)