Capitalism is not a form of Government, it is an economic system.
2007-12-14 05:34:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
No. And despite the "different things" so many here seem to think economics and politics are, they are intimately related. All human social affairs involve production. Economics are the "what." Politics are the "how."
The capitalists are NEVER "sincere enough." And they are ALWAYS corrupt.
All they want is the money.
At least in socialism, the abuses are just that -- ABUSES! SOMETIMES (I'm not naive enough to say always) the abuses can be avoided.
In capitalism, they are built into the system and CAN'T be avoided.
Like the liberal/conservative con-game we have here in the U.S. The conservatives rig the economy so that no one makes big money except their corporate friends. If you are VERY smart and figure a way around it, the liberals are there to tax it away from you.
The conservative economic approach creates a desperate class of criminals that will hurt or kill you to take what's yours. The liberals want to take your gun away so you can't defend yourself.
Conservatives are people who answer the question "Can we do better than capitalism?" with "Shut up, get back in line, go back to work, or I'll beat you harder."
Liberals answer that question with "No, but we understand that it has problems. Here's a program to get you some peroxide and a bandaid for that cancer. Please don't have your union go on strike, or we'll have to send the police after you."
Even the Stalinists did better than that. At least when their secret police weren't out after you personally, they guaranteed you a job, housing, and medical care.
What does capitalism guarantee us besides wars abroad for markets and colonies, and crime and poverty at home?
And a socialist democracy, where elected workers councils rule (the ORIGINAL meaning of "soviets," before the Stalinists turned it into a joke) can combine a socialist economy with democratic politics.
Capitalism can't beat that!
And I use "socialist" in the original Marxist sense, as a way towards communism, not in the modern sense of a capitalist economy and government with a few more reforms than the liberals want.
2007-12-14 13:49:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by Dont Call Me Dude 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
it depends on the people who work inside each system. a corrupt government will be bad for for a socialist or communist system, and will have the least impact on a capitalistic one. china is a good example of this. everyone wants to operate in china and make money but it's run by a government that has little regard for copywrite, worker's health, and so forth. however, corrupt citizens, and businessmen will wreak havoc on a capitalistic one. look at the mortgage fiasco we just had, or the savings and loan scandal of the 80's. an economic system is just that, a system.
i will point out that what you listed are ECONOMIC SYSTEMS, and not governments. no country has ever been a true communist system, according to what the definition of it is (the ussr was a militaristic dictatorship as is china). most of europe is socialist (the uk, france gernamy, etc) but they are democratic, parliamentary governments. any one of these financial systems can operate as a democracy. what tires me the most is greed in any form and in any branch of the population. if the people are bad, so will the system running it. and where the money is, so will the corruption be most. so i'm rather indifferent as long as the government behind the system is democratic, fair, and run by people who serve the people, not business interests or the powerful. all three can have their advantages if run fairly. i would still have to favor capitalism, but it's weakest point is that it takes no consideration for the community at large, unlike socialism and communism. it's solely about the individual, thus everyone is left to fend for themselves. it is the most prone to greed because money is so readily available. it's strength is that it breeds creativity, efficiency, and opportunity for many. it promotes hard work, and the drive to improve ones station in life. that is a good thing.
2007-12-14 13:47:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
Like most issues the answer I think lies some where in between. I think that capitalism breeds the belief that we are all separate and it causes people only be concerned with themselves. I think that a total socialist society, although there are some people who do things not just for money, could make some people not strive. If we had a socialist base where the necessities life like, food, housing, and health care were somehow guarantied to people then let the free market do the rest it would be a better system. Robert Kennedy says that he loves the free market but we don't have that.-Show me the free market I'll show you a subsidy. The truth is the system now gives help to the affluent and not to those who need it. Who would you rather help someone who needs it or someone who doesn't?
2007-12-14 13:52:10
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
Get rich quick schemes in the capitalist business world, (buyouts, IPOs, conglomerates, acquisitions, mergers, and the stock market), do not actually work. Remaining solvent does not actually exist within false economics capitalism.
Profit existing in the capitalist business world, or millionaires existing within capitalism, is pathological deception committed by the 21 organizations spying on the population with plain clothes agents, (with covert fake names and fake backgrounds).
Actual economics is the persons paying the monthly business loan payments of companies voting at work in order to control the property they are paying for.
Capitalism is the psychology of imaginary parents, false economics, and the criminal deception of employees that are paying the bills (including the stocks and bonds, or shares) of companies.
Anti-Democracy republicanism is the psychology of imaginary parents, and false government.
2007-12-15 11:57:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No I believe in social Democracy. Pure capitalism kills!
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty.asp
12. Democratic socialism is an international movement for freedom, social justice and solidarity. Its goal is to achieve a peaceful world where these basic values can be enhanced and where each individual can live a meaningful life with the full development of his or her personality and talents and with the guarantee of human and civil rights in a democratic framework of society.
13. Freedom is the product of both individual and cooperative efforts - the two aspects are parts of a single process. Each person has the right to be free of political coercion and also to the greatest chance to act in pursuit of individual goals and to fulfil personal potential. But that is only possible if humanity as a whole succeeds in its long-standing struggle to master its history and to ensure that no person, class, sex, religion or race becomes the servant of another.
14. Justice and Equality. Justice means the end of all discrimination against individuals, and the equality of rights and opportunities. It demands compensation for physical, mental and social inequalities, and freedom from dependence on either the owners of the means of production or the holders of political power.
Equality is the expression of the equal value of all human beings and the precondition for the free development of the human personality. Basic economic, social and cultural equality is essential for individual diversity and social progress.
Freedom and equality are not contradictory. Equality is the condition for the development of individual personality. Equality and personal freedom are indivisible.
15. Solidarity is all-encompassing and global. It is the practical expression of common humanity and of the sense of compassion with the victims of injustice. Solidarity is rightly stressed and celebrated by all major humanist traditions. In the present era of unprecedented interdependence between individuals and nations, solidarity gains an enhanced significance since it is imperative for human survival.
16. Democratic socialists attach equal importance to these fundamental principles. They are interdependent. Each is a prerequisite of the other. As opposed to this position, Liberals and Conservatives have placed the main emphasis on individual liberty at the expense of justice and solidarity while Communists have claimed to achieve equality and solidarity, but at the expense of freedom
http://www.socialistinternational.org/4Principles/dofpeng2.html
2007-12-16 10:04:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by justgoodfolk 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Capitalism is not a form of government. It is in fact a separation of the government from the economy similar to the separation of church and state.
When everybody plays fair this can be an ideal situation. However corruption and greed by the rich sometimes necessitate the need for a powerful ally. Average Joe Citizen's only powerful ally is his government. Hence the games we play.
2007-12-14 13:38:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by David M 6
·
4⤊
1⤋
capitalism is not a form of gvt....its an economic system.
but yes I agree that capitalism is preferred over communism,
But I do not believe we should sell our souls to capitalism either. In life anything done to an extreme no matter how good becomes bad for you at some point. Rampant, excessive, devoid of compassion, out of control, monopolistic, border erasing, govt and politician controlling capitalism is not good for us either. We must strive for some balance. Just because we generally believe in free markets and freedom, does not mean we should give big business so much freedom and so much power that they now own us and control everything in societies to benefit them.
2007-12-14 13:37:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by ez f 1
·
2⤊
2⤋
Yep. Under a capitalist system, you're free to choose the business entities with which you do business. Under communism and hard-line socialism, good luck exercising any freedom of choice.
2007-12-14 13:35:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
I believe power should be in the hands of the people, not capitalists.
Beside Capitalism and Socialism are economic systems, not political systems.
2007-12-14 13:34:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋