Actually I'm using the commonly accepted definition of capitalism and socialism. From dictionary.com "Capitalism, n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market." n: an economic system based on private ownership of capital" "Socialism, n. 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. n. A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital" In other words, socialism requires redistribution and collective/government ownership of capital and the means of production. Redistribution alone would be better described as egalitarian than socialist, as it does not imply collective ownership of industry. Jesus and Ghandi were certainly egalitarian and supported giving to the poor, although less so than people like Andrew Carnegie or Bill Gates who donated far more to charity and created a lot more jobs. Carnegie and Gates also did not spawn an ideology that resulted in millions of deaths, as Jesus and Ghandi both did. Since I prefer society to be prosperous, with good living standards for as many as possible, as opposed to widespread poverty, disease, and starvation, I prefer a system which rewards the likes of Gates & Carnegie rather than Jesus and Ghandhi. Becoming rich is far better for society than glorifying poverty and lack of progress. "I would argue that if Jesus were here today, he would favor the state distributing more wealth and services to the poor, as the pure capitalists wouldn't have an interest in doing so on their own or through charitable means. As you might recall, Jesus wasn't big on people's accumulation of excess wealth." Yes, but Jesus was an economic illiterate, like most people, so he would do so without understanding that this would in fact penalise the poor along with everyone else. His policies would require an increase in taxation, thus reducing the productivity of business, resulting in slower economic growth and thus keeping the poor oppressed for longer. You appear not to know simple economic laws. For example, the marginal productivity of labour is positively correlated with the total stock of invested capital. Therefore, the more capital accumulated by greedy capitalists, the higher real wages will be. Thus greed directly benefits the poor by raising the real wages. In contrast, redistributive taxes reduce the stock of invested capital and therefore result in lower real wages. Why would a compassionate person wish to pursue a policy that results in lower living standards? If your theories, and those of Jesus and Ghandhi were right, why is India wracked with poverty and death, whilst America is full of prosperity and longeivity? Why do Indians who migrate to America do so much better here than in their own country, or anywhere else in the world?
Cutten wrote Which just shows that what we have is a hybrid (Capitalist+Socialist) economy. We always will, and necesarily so.
You are making a technical argument and a purely economic argument. Capitalism as a defined economic system that followed the industrial revolution is less than 200 years old, and the same is true for socialism as it is technically and economically understood. I am making a spiritual point about the nature of capitalism and socialism. Here is a fine definition of socialism that is less technical and more spiritual: Socialism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Socialism can refer to a political doctrine, an economic theory, a vision of an ideal society, or a description of an actually existing society. In its broadest sense, socialism is a belief that human society can and should be organised along social lines - that is, for the benefit of all, rather than for the profit of a few, which it argued had been the case hitherto. Its key ideas are opposition to capitalism, and a belief in equality, both political and economic. Carnegie and Gates also did not spawn an ideology that resulted in millions of deaths, as Jesus and Gandhi both did. It was not the ideology of Gandhi and Jesus that caused the death of millions, it was the power hungry capitalist mentality that rejected the concept of equality for all people that resulted in the deaths of millions.
that is a bizzare, unreliable, and biased source. phrankly, i am not surprised you consult such twisted tomes, given your socialistic, power to the people, 60's burned out, angry hippie mentality. :eek: :eek: http://www.vsearchmedia.com/books/prankexc10.shtml
Wikipedia is open source, feel free to make any contribution you like, or simply comment without participation in the process, your choice. It is not surprising that you would respond as you did to any thoughts that challenge your embedded materialistic tendencies. Wikipedia: About From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that is being written collaboratively by the various readers. The site is a WikiWiki, meaning that anyone, you included, can edit any article right now by clicking on the edit this page link that appears in every Wikipedia article except for a few protected pages. The project was started on January 15, 2001 and there are 187946 articles in English that are being worked on with many more articles being written in other languages. Every day hundreds of contributors from around the world make thousands of edits and create lots of new articles. All of the site's content is covered by the GNU Free Documentation License. Contributions remain the property of their creators, while the copyleft licensing ensures that the content will always remain freely distributable and reproducible. See copyrights for more information. Note: Wikipedia contains content that may be considered offensive, vulgar or profane by some users. See the content disclaimer for more information.
It is a shame that you missed out on the 60's, you are forever left with a sour grapes mentality regarding the beauty and ideals of that time frame. Non-absolute ideas are what discussions are all about, and what life really is. While a person may seek an absolute guide for his own life and behavior, to extend that personal absolutism toward how others should behave is fascism.
you are mixing a myriad of issues and topics in your response. it is critical that absolute definitions of words exist for order and societal cohesiveness to prosper. this has nothing to do with fascism or your other buzz words, despite what the left over long haired flower children have advised. surfer
You of all people broaching the topic of exactness in language is a riot. It is critical to understand words in context. In the context I am using the terms capitalist and socialist, as explained in other threads, there is only confusion among people like you. Clearly, we would think an avowed modern day capitalist who claims to have chosen capitalism as a means to empower society to be a loon. Equally, if we found a modern day socialist claiming to have embraced socialism as a means to gather a disproportionate amount of wealth from society we would think him daft. It is in the intention to favor personal gain over social welfare--or vice versa that makes someone a socialist or a capitalist. I find your response to my signature amusing, and am delighted that you feel so threatened by it. As far as the flower children of the 60's, you can only enviously dream about how much fun we had with the flowering of peace, love, and the elevation of social consciousness. Something that all the money in the world will never be able to recapture. You missed out on the best times dude, and you simply can't stand it. Enjoy the prison of your materialism. It too shall pass.
that is absolute lunacy. the worldwide embracing of capitalism is the ONLY way to empower society. your socialistic cultural experimentation has failed miserably, regardless of what your ideologues propagate. best, surfer