# Would you rather live in a SOCIALIST or CAPITALIST country?



## AlienOnEarth (Dec 5, 2004)

Which one do you root for? Which do you think is better for yourself and the public?

*In Short:*


one dumb user name said:


> *capitalists* believe in the free market, with little or no government interference.
> 
> *socialists* believe in heavy government subsidies, particularly of human services programs (like health care).



*Detailed:*

*Socialism* is an ideology with the core belief that a society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power, and therefore the means of production. In application, however, the de facto meaning of socialism has changed with time. Although it is a politically loaded term, it remains strongly related to the establishment of an organized working class, created through either revolution or social evolution, with the purpose of building a classless society. It has also, increasingly, become concentrated on social reforms within modern democracies. This concept and the term Socialist also refer to a group of ideologies, an economic system, or a state that exists or has existed.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

*Capitalism* refers to an economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated and where investments, production, distribution, income, and prices are determined by market forces (a "free market"), rather than by any other methods (such as economic planning in a planned economy, for example). Those in control of the means of production in capitalist societies have generally run them for monetary profit.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism


----------



## odun (Nov 9, 2003)

extremely capitalist.

unfortunately for us, we live in a mildly socialist country. we arent as far gone as canada and western europe, but we are sure heading in that direction.

we need leaders with a lot less heart. all we have now are a bunch of hand wringers, who, at least, *feign* concern for the poor. but why should the achievers pay for those whove made a mess out of their lives. it is nothing less than stealing.


----------



## odun (Nov 9, 2003)

capitalists believe in the free market, with little or no government interference.

socialists believe in heavy government subsidies, particularly of human services programs (like health care).


----------



## ott (Aug 2, 2005)

wituckius said:


> Not all wealth is a product of hard work. A lot of it is luck.


Or dishonesty and greed.


----------



## odun (Nov 9, 2003)

ott said:


> wituckius said:
> 
> 
> > Not all wealth is a product of hard work. A lot of it is luck.
> ...


so you want the government to help us out?

there is just as much dishonesty and greed in the government as there is in the private sector.


----------



## ott (Aug 2, 2005)

one dumb user name said:


> ott said:
> 
> 
> > wituckius said:
> ...


I don't think I've written anything to that effect anywhere.


----------



## Bon1 (Jan 17, 2005)

one dumb user name said:


> unfortunately for us, we live in a mildly socialist country. we arent as far gone as canada and western europe, *but we are sure heading in that direction.*.


Thanks heavens, maybe people that need medical care will get it.

I MUST learn to quote two people at once!


----------



## Bon1 (Jan 17, 2005)

one dumb user name said:


> ott said:
> 
> 
> > wituckius said:
> ...


Yeah, but at least this way, we all would benefit, not a select few that can afford a lobbiest.


----------



## AlienOnEarth (Dec 5, 2004)

one dumb user name said:


> extremely capitalist.
> 
> unfortunately for us, we live in a mildly socialist country. we arent as far gone as canada and western europe, but we are sure heading in that direction.
> 
> we need leaders with a lot less heart. all we have now are a bunch of hand wringers, who, at least, *feign* concern for the poor. but why should the achievers pay for those whove made a mess out of their lives. it is nothing less than stealing.


 :lol :lol :lol

Unfortunately, life is not that simple. We are not all born with EQUAL uppprtunities and luck. One simply cannot achieve a decent life with HARD WORK. American Dream is just a dream, not reality.

There are many elements that yield to success. First of all, education. A peaceful and supportive family is a MUST for a child to succeed in studies. It can be hard for someone who is blessed with a good family to think it is not important, and they could have done it even if they did not have the support. I cannot convince you if you have never been in a situation like that. (am I making sense?)

Lets say one is born into a supportive and peaceful yet financially troubled family. In such a case, even if the person does work hard and get the marks in school, they will not be able to go to college or university.

You mention "those who have made a mess of their lives". who are you referring to cause the majority of the poor have not messed up their lives since they never even had the chance.

How can one possibly say it has been fair all along and it is each individual's fault to have a messed up life?? Have you forgotten about how certain minorities (African-Americans mostly) had been treated since 200 years ago? It has only been recently that the idea of FAIRNESS has been somewhat introduced. Just recently the women's rights have been introduced.

These words seem to belong to someone who has had little exposure to the real world.

I am a perfect example of my argument. If it had not been for Ontario Student Assistant Program There would have been no way I could have gone to university. No way. I would have to start looking for minimum paying jobs, and start living a life far below the middle class way of life.

How can anyone justify luxurious life for some, along with poverty and death (remember 'John Q') for the rest??

I am very happy to live in Canada, where people have a higher quality of life than people in US (lower crime rate and other social problems).


----------



## odun (Nov 9, 2003)

> Have you forgotten about how certain minorities (African-Americans mostly) had been treated since 200 years ago?


i think im pretty outspoken on civil rights issues.

and in my part of the country, it was the government that said blacks couldnt drink out of the same water fountain as whites. it was the government that wouldnt let them go to the same schools. in alabama, the governor was standing in the schoolhouse door to block access.

in my birth state of virginia, the state closed its schools to keep them from integrating.

i dont believe for one second the government gives a flip about minorities. why should i trust them to protect civil rights?



> These words seem to belong to someone who has had little exposure to the real world.


yes i just fell off the turnip truck.

i be a stupid hick.


----------



## Molten Universe (Feb 17, 2005)

This will probably strike the extremists as evading the question, but a society that was based purely on capitalism or socialism would be a miserable place in my opinion. Either way there are going to be some people benefitting from it and many others toiling away in futility. It just depends on who you want screwing you over: capitalist pigs, or socialist controllers.

In my view, the best we can hope for is a basically capitalist society with some aspects of socialism. There would definitely be problems, but not as bad as one that was at an extreme end of the scale.


----------



## schooley (Mar 25, 2005)

Molten Universe said:


> This will probably strike the extremists as evading the question, but a society that was based purely on capitalism or socialism would be a miserable place in my opinion. Either way there are going to be some people benefitting from it and many others toiling away in futility. It just depends on who you want screwing you over: capitalist pigs, or socialist controllers.
> 
> In my view, the best we can hope for is a basically capitalist society with some aspects of socialism. There would definitely be problems, but not as bad as one that was at an extreme end of the scale.


 :agree


----------



## heavymetal (Jan 28, 2005)

schooley said:


> Molten Universe said:
> 
> 
> > This will probably strike the extremists as evading the question, but a society that was based purely on capitalism or socialism would be a miserable place in my opinion. Either way there are going to be some people benefitting from it and many others toiling away in futility. It just depends on who you want screwing you over: capitalist pigs, or socialist controllers.
> ...


 :agree

Socialism sounds good in theory but in the real word is often misused to the benefit of those in power and not of the masses. If I had a choice to live in a capitalist country like the U.S. or a socialist country--Latin America comes to mind--I'd choose to stay put.


----------



## orpheus (Nov 16, 2003)

neither!


----------



## michijo (Nov 12, 2011)

Both socialism and capitalism are misused by those in power. Both Capitalism and Socialism seem good in theory, but both tend toward corruption. The attraction of the USA is pop-culture. Many foreigners find the crap-culture extremely enticing. Its called Soft-Diplomacy by the government, to the extent that a German can be won over to support the USA, simply because he finds for instance the electric guitar or blues music appealing, for example. So I can only answer concerning theory and not practice of either capitalism or socialism. I would prefer a government more socialist than western Europe, but not Soviet or oppressive with KGB like Russia, somewhere between Russia and Western Europe. The NSA in the USA and KGB in Russia prove both capitalism and socialism can become oppressive. For instance in Sweden the government controls all the liquor, and one can only buy alcohol from a government run store. Ontario has something similar, and Canada has a very stable economy, better than the USA. Then we have production. Now the computer is a nice tool. I have one, but I use Slackware on it, a free open source more socialist operating system, and I frankly dont need the latest Apple gadget, and Steve Jobs is dead, so whatever capitalist innovation he did was meaningless, as I have never used a Mac. Mild innovation is good, but at some point it is all just crap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systembolaget


----------



## fingertips (Jan 11, 2009)

odun said:


> capitalists believe in the free market, with little or no government interference.
> 
> socialists believe in heavy government subsidies, particularly of human services programs (like health care).


going by these definitions, socialism.


----------



## SuperSky (Feb 16, 2011)

Socialist, as long as corruption isn't a factor.


----------



## fingertips (Jan 11, 2009)

ahahaha, i had no idea this was such an old thread.


----------



## northstar1991 (Oct 4, 2011)

I'd rather live in a moral capitalist society.


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

michijo said:


> Now the computer is a nice tool. I have one, but I use Slackware on it, a free open source more socialist operating system, and I frankly dont need the latest Apple gadget, and Steve Jobs is dead, so whatever capitalist innovation he did was meaningless, as I have never used a Mac. Mild innovation is good, but at some point it is all just crap.


Nice first post... :sus

Slackware is communist (given away free, and only people who have the ability to help need to)
Red hat would be socialist. (pay a little to get more people to create new things)
Apple has changed a lot of industries, not just computers. I have the latest Apple gadget, and Jobs and Apple's innovations have changed the world.


----------



## SuperSky (Feb 16, 2011)

fingertips said:


> ahahaha, i had no idea this was such an old thread.


Whoops! Lol me neither. Ummm, a belated happy 6th birthday to this thread


----------



## ttrp (Feb 17, 2011)

northstar1991 said:


> I'd rather live in a moral capitalist society.


Then it would turn into a socialist society.


----------



## hoddesdon (Jul 28, 2011)

^ So you are saying that capitalism is immoral?


----------



## ttrp (Feb 17, 2011)

hoddesdon said:


> ^ So you are saying that capitalism is immoral?


laissez-faire capitalism


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

I like small government. If I do decide to remain lazy for the rest of my life and live off the government then I would go with socialism.


----------



## kev (Jan 28, 2005)

None of the above. I would like to live in a country where the best decision is made in every case - not simply a decision that conforms to a specific ideology.


----------



## Marlon (Jun 27, 2011)

I believe in an absolutely free market, however I think there are some cases where the socialism is more beneficial. I chose moderately capitalist for that reason.



kev said:


> None of the above. I would like to live in a country where the best decision is made in every case - not simply a decision that conforms to a specific ideology.


Great answer. I'm not sure if you're from the USA, but this is why I choose to label myself as Independent instead of Republican or Democrat. I think it's nonsense to follow an ideology instead of doing what is best for the country.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

I like how the the Scandinavian countries run things.


----------



## straightarrows (Jun 18, 2010)

mmm, not sure what sys we've here!!, I mean Health Care + Education (incl Higher edu) =free,, gov pay %97 of actual cost for Water & electricity (not sure if its' really cheap),, they control the prices of few things like Wheat,,,,,,

I visited Syria back in 2000,,,I was really cool that their Gov control prices of everything!! everything=cheap!BUT ,,,everything looked old to me!! most builidings= 70's!! most cars =20 years old!


----------



## straightarrows (Jun 18, 2010)

Cerberus said:


> Moderately socialist.
> 
> Everytime I think of extreme capitalism I think of the industrial age of britain and oliver twist. A few people with alot of money and 99% of the population with almost nothing; forced to live in poverty. Not all wealth is a product of hard work. A lot of it is luck.





Marlon said:


> I believe in an absolutely free market, however I think there are some cases where the socialism is more beneficial. I chose moderately capitalist for that reason.
> 
> Great answer. I'm not sure if you're from the USA, but this is why I choose to label myself as Independent instead of Republican or Democrat. I think it's nonsense to follow an ideology instead of doing what is best for the country.


watch it to the end,,,,,,,


----------



## ttrp (Feb 17, 2011)

komorikun said:


> I like how the the Scandinavian countries run things.


As do I. That's the kind of "socialism" I'm all for.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Marlon said:


> I'm not sure if you're from the USA, but this is why I choose to label myself as Independent instead of Republican or Democrat. I think it's nonsense to follow an ideology instead of doing what is best for the country.


Reps & Dems have absolutely no coherent ideology at all. They're both just a hodge podge of random ideas not related to each other in any logical manner whatsoever.

They'd have to figure out what their ideology even is first. Far as I can tell it consists almost entirely of an overwhelming desire to win the next election cycle.


----------



## Cornerstone (Jun 30, 2011)

Social democracy, please


----------



## straightarrows (Jun 18, 2010)

Cornerstone said:


> Social democracy, please


Luxemburg : isn't that where $$$$$$$ hide their money???:b and that $$$$$ Cargo airlines called:yes:clap cargolux:b


----------



## Selbbin (Aug 10, 2010)

Moderately socialist. Money is not the only thing of value. We need to look after each other as a community, as tribes do. But that said, it can't be extreme either because we need a reward system (Capitalism does NOT always = hard work), mainly for taking investment risks and new ideas. Capitalist ideals promote quality and advancement in technology, so is valuable, but has the potential to exploit and destroy. 

A mixture is best.

A purely capitalist society is extremely dangerous as exploitation becomes the norm and the 'hard work' will mean bupkis. As someone mentioned, look at industrial England. Fair wage? Forget about it. A purely capitalist society won't be that different from an extremely communist one, to be honest. Both will exploit workers at the cost of their happiness in order to make the leaders more powerful. Moderation in any game has always been key.

The 'happiest' nations on earth where people earn a fair wage and with excellent living conditions tend to be moderately socialist, moderately capitalist democracies, and democratic kingdoms (Such as Denmark and the Netherlands).


----------



## straightarrows (Jun 18, 2010)

Selbbin said:


> Moderately socialist. Money is not the only thing of value. We need to look after each other as a community, as tribes do. But that said, it can't be extreme either because we need a reward system (Capitalism does NOT always = hard work), mainly for taking investment risks and new ideas. Capitalist ideals promote quality and advancement in technology, so is valuable, but has the potential to exploit and destroy.
> 
> A mixture is best.
> 
> ...


I'm sure u could find better countries than those two!

Isn't the netherlands is where they sale women on auctions , under age illegal immagrants to produce BDSM movies?? where drugs r legal??


----------



## Selbbin (Aug 10, 2010)

straightarrows said:


> I'm sure u could find better countries than those two!
> 
> Isn't the netherlands is where they sale women on auctions , under age illegal immagrants to produce BDSM movies?? where drugs r legal??


They have similar underground activities to other nations, certainly; and no different to almost all western industrialized nations, but nowhere near as bad as eastern Europe. And no, hard drugs are not legal there. Pot is legal in restricted distribution (while growing it is illegal), and now only for citizens. Holland has the lowest use of hard drugs of any western democracy, and a lot lower than the US. I've seen US shows that have conservatives use Holland as an example of socialism creating 'chaos' and 'anarchy' but any person with any sense or experience will know how idiotic those claims are. They even make fun of the US scare campaigns on Dutch TV.


----------

