Socialism or Capitalism??

Question

which is better? a socialist govt, where the rich are made to help the poor, or a capitalist govt where the poor are made to help the rich?
Another view is -
Socialist european countries have more leisure time & health benifits than anywhere in the world, but earn less money.Work to live.
Capitalist america earn more money to buy all sorts of luxury goods but have no social health care system and work long hours. Live to work.

Which do you think is better? being rich? or being happy?

sorry- your right. it is more to do with economics but since it's normally state guided i cut to the chase a bit :P

Answer 1

One must be careful to make one's intended meaning
known when using the terms "socialism" and "capitalism"
(as well as related terms) because they have undergone
polemic re-definition over the decades that causes a great
deal of confusion.

In the traditional sense, "capitalism" means the ownership
and control of the means of production by a class of
"capitalists" (in the traditional sense, the owners of capital,
or means of production used by workers other than the
capitalists/owners themselves) and an economic and political
system that favors this.

In the traditional sense, "socialism" means the ownership
and control of the means of production by the workers
themselves, whether as individuals, cooperatives, collectives,
communal groups, or through the state, and an economic and
political system that favors this. One should note that this
does not necessarily mean by the people as a whole, nor does
it necessarily mean state ownership, nor does it necessarily
imply a non-market form of organization; historically,
anarcho-individualism (e.g., in the free-market form
advocated by Benjamin Tucker) has been an important
form of socialism.

In the later re-definition, "socialism" means the ownership
and control of the means of production by the people as a
whole, generally by means of the state, or simply the
ownership and control of the means of production by the state,
or more broadly any form of central planning by the state.

In the later re-definition, "capitalism" means the private
(non-government) ownership of the means of production,
and more generally the absence of central planning by the
state.

Matters have become especially confused because these
terms have been used in ways that include both the traditional
sense and the later re-definition of the terms. Thus, Marxist-
Leninists will define "socialism" in the traditional sense, but
at the same time refer to examples of "socialism" in the later
re-definition, in order to gain support for totalitarian Bolshevik
regimes that actually destroy any examples of "socialism" in
the traditional sense; likewise, their "capitalist" opponents will
do the same, in order to support the belief that There Is No
Alternative (TINA) to "capitalism" other than a tyrannic
despotism. (In this connection, one should note that according
to Marx and Engels, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a
transitional stage between capitalism and socialism/
communism, which will not exist until the state has withered
away to nothing.)

In the same way, advocates of "capitalism" will define the
term with the later re-definition, but actually refer to concrete
examples that instead fit the original sense, even citing as
positive examples dictatorships such as Pinochet's in Chile.
And just as with "socialism", some opponents of
"capitalism" will do likewise in order to discredit it in the
sense of the later re-definition. At present, state-corporate
globalization, in which there is rule by states, corporations,
international financial institutions (IFIs), and the like, is
the typical form of "capitalism" actually advocated by
most avowed capitalists, rather than a truly free market.

This effectively means that there are (at the least) three
common usages of the terms "socialism" and "capitalism",
and so it behoves one to make clear in what sense one is
using these and related terms, and to what empirical examples
one refers.

One should also note the term "state-capitalism", used
by socialists (in the traditional sense) to refer to state
ownership and control of the means of production in
varying degrees ranging from capitalist dictatorships
such as Pinochet's through to Marxist-Leninist
dictatorships such as the Bolshevik regimes. This
extends the traditional sense of "capitalism", as the
state (at least partially) replaces the traditional "private"
capitalist class to varying degrees.

News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/

Answer 2

I'd take the democratic socialism of Europe in a heartbeat.....I've lived there...it works very well.
I'd like to see the people who actually create the wealth..that is the ones who do the work, get a far greater share of the wealth.
I'd much rather be happy than rich.
I think those who we might call rich in a new system are only a little more rich than the average person. For instance, I want docs well paid so the best people are attracted to medicine....but not driving around in $50,000 cars or sending their kids skiing in Vail. I'd like to see a rebalance of income. I certainly don't think a banker is more valuable than a nurse or a firefighter or a police officer, but our pay rate doesn't reflect that.....I can along, for the most part, without a banker, but we need nurses, firefighters, police officers, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, mechanics, etc.

Answer 3

If you are asking which is better, then you are obviously poor.
Maybe you can explain why the rich from other countries come here for health care when the have a serious illness.
Socialism discourages anyone from working hard, why bother if the government will swoop down and take the lions share of the income. They would stop being so lazy in those countries if they could keep most of what they earned.

Answer 4

In an economic sense, real Socialism cannot work in a modern, technologically advanced economy. This is because the only people with the information to run state run firms are the firms themselves. Hence, the economy is really one of monopoly. The state owned firms dictate the prices, quantities and output and care little about possible competition. Hence relative prices are too high, output is too low and the economy eventually self-destructs. It is important to note that this process takes time, and as the Soviet Union changed from feudalism to monopoly capitalism, it grew enormously, being able to send a man to the moon. But after that, it stagnated.

The kind of socialism that can work is Democratic Socialism - whereby instead of the government owning the means of production it simply tempers it to it's own well for the benefit, safety and welfare of the workers.

Answer 5

There are people that will tell you that Socialism is an economic system, but it is not true. It is a form of government where people are forced to be poor.
Under Capitalism, people are free to work hard or be slovenly. In the USA, only about 5% are too lazy to work, they steal and rob and do drugs. In a Capitalist country people have the opportunity to become wealthy, if they work hard, save their money, invest carefully, and take advantage of the cheap education we have here. Those who refuse to be educated or refuse to develop a good work ethic become the homeless and the criminal class.

Answer 6

Some Europeans earn more than Americans. Not all Europeans countries are socialist. Remember socialism isn't about robbing the rich to feed the poor. This is not Robin Hood story.

Answer 7

And have you seen the statistics on suicide from socialist countries where there is no purpose to work... where happiness is never really found?

Happiness does not come from having things or being lazy all day at home, as a lot of people are in Socialist countries. Happiness comes from within. The liberal Danish policy of drug-use and liberal mentality is a major contributing factor to the sucide rate there too.

Answer 8

The reason this country (USA) is rich is because it is a free country. We have been around for what 250 Years. Other country's have been around for thousands, with no freedom. look where they are at. I still can't figure out why people sneak in here, when it's such a horrible country. To bad the libs are taking over. It may not be free much longer.

Answer 9

I believe in a blended system actually and history bares me out, there has NEVER been a successful democracy that didn't have a social safety net, read up on it you'll see where ever riches have been pursued by the masses successfully they provided fundamental services to the lower classes

Answer 10

I think a captialist economy is best - provided that it isnt at the expese of the poor and needy.
to babe: USA certainly doesnt have the best health care in the world! what are you on? it has one of the highest infant mortality rates of industrialized nations, as well as one of the lowest sucess rates in cancer treatment...France/Cuba & UK are generally regarded by medical experts to be the best.