To What Degree Should a Country Be Socialist/To What Degree Should a Country Be Capitalist - General

I think when talking about socialism vs. capitalism that a lot of people throughout the world are looking at it from a very black and white perspective of being all one or the other. I want to start a discussion about what degree we should be, because I do think that many people simultaneously believe in aspects of both without realizing it. I believe that essential aspects of society should be paid for by the government. I also believe that certain necessities, such as roads and healthcare, should have both capitalist and socialist options. I do believe, however, that there are some things that should only have one, such as the military only being socialist, and unnecessary things, such as entertainment only being capitalist. I do believe that a nation should have a tax system where you always make more money if you work harder/create more services/products, but I also believe that the tax system should be easy on those who are in economic troubles and a little bit more on those who it won't really affect dramatically. I also believe in a welfare system that encourages work, leaving your family very Spartan if you make absolutely no income and slowly encouraging you to do better. I actually thought of a welfare system based on an equation. N=necessary to survive; I=Income; P=Reasonable proportion to deduct. N-(I/P) Once (I/P)>N, you no longer receive assistance. For example, let's say that 300 units of currency is necessary to just barely survive and half is the reasonable proportion (although this is subject to change). If you don't work, you receive 300 units. If you earn 60 units, that's 300-(60/2), which is 270. 270+60=330, so your minimal work has earned you an extra 30 units of currency. I think this would be a good alternative to our welfare system in the United States that discourages social mobility. Our system is pretty much this: as soon as you make over a certain amount, you suddenly make significantly less. My mother-in-law's family actually had to go a few days without food because she worked a few extra hours, resulting in a significant deduction from her welfare check that disallowed her from buying groceries. In a way, I see socialistic aspects and capitalistic aspects like a cart and an ox, socialistic aspects representing the cart, capitalistic aspects representing the ox. If there is only the cart, everyone has to push the cart, making everyone miserable, if there is only the ox that is wild and without a harness connected to the cart, it simply runs about and maybe someone manages to stay on the ox, and everyone else is miserable. I believe capitalism and socialism are both necessary things that complement each other, but can't stand alone.

A government should be socialist enough so that everyone has what they need, and capitalist enough so that everyone can get what they want. As long as the prior is satisfied, the capitalist should be pretty much free so long as they don't impede with everyone's needs.

You don't seem to know the definition of socialism very well.

[QUOTE=GenPol;36396432]You don't seem to know the definition of socialism very well.[/QUOTE] "There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism." Peter Lamb, J. C. Docherty. Historical dictionary of socialism. Lanham, Maryland, UK; Oxford, England, UK: Scarecrow Press, Inc, 2006. Pp. 1. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] Either way, I think we all get his point. What should be controlled by the state, and what should be left to individual businesses in a market environment? At that point you're just nit-picking, GenPol. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] As for the OP's belief that we should give a certain amount to people that earn under a certain amount, I think that's pretty silly. If I work hard and pay my taxes, shouldn't I be getting the same benefits as somebody that's poor? If we give more for being poor, wouldn't that advocate not working, instead of working? If we're giving out handouts, why not give the same to everybody? In that case, everybody still has an incentive to work harder, but has something to fall back onto if they can't for whatever reason. In that case, it's fair.

[QUOTE=Zally13;36396552]"There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism." Peter Lamb, J. C. Docherty. Historical dictionary of socialism. Lanham, Maryland, UK; Oxford, England, UK: Scarecrow Press, Inc, 2006. Pp. 1. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] Either way, I think we all get his point. What should be controlled by the state, and what should be left to individual businesses in a market environment? At that point you're just nit-picking, GenPol. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] As for the OP's belief that we should give a certain amount to people that earn under a certain amount, I think that's pretty silly. If I work hard and pay my taxes, shouldn't I be getting the same benefits as somebody that's poor? If we give more for being poor, wouldn't that advocate not working, instead of working? If we're giving out handouts, why not give the same to everybody? In that case, everybody still has an incentive to work harder, but has something to fall back onto if they can't for whatever reason. In that case, it's fair.[/QUOTE] It would stop once the person is no longer poor enough to qualify. My welfare idea would be to make it so that people who were on welfare slowly had more money as they worked their way out of poverty so that they would be encouraged to move up the economic ladder, whereas our welfare system here in the states discourages that. The welfare system that I thought up leaves the person who only works at McDonald's with not enough hours to support his/her family to have more income than the person who doesn't work at all. Everyone has the bare essentials at least, but the way the program that I'm proposing would work is that you would still end up with more than the people on welfare if you're bringing in more income. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] Also, as a general comment to the thread, anyone who believes that we should have a public military, which is what almost every country in the world has, is a socialist to some degree. Also 2000th post... but that's irrelevant.

[QUOTE=Zally13;36396552]"There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism." Peter Lamb, J. C. Docherty. Historical dictionary of socialism. Lanham, Maryland, UK; Oxford, England, UK: Scarecrow Press, Inc, 2006. Pp. 1. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] Either way, I think we all get his point. What should be controlled by the state, and what should be left to individual businesses in a market environment? At that point you're just nit-picking, GenPol. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] As for the OP's belief that we should give a certain amount to people that earn under a certain amount, I think that's pretty silly. If I work hard and pay my taxes, shouldn't I be getting the same benefits as somebody that's poor? If we give more for being poor, wouldn't that advocate not working, instead of working? If we're giving out handouts, why not give the same to everybody? In that case, everybody still has an incentive to work harder, but has something to fall back onto if they can't for whatever reason. In that case, it's fair.[/QUOTE] "There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism." It doesn't mean that socialism is still defined within defined boundaries. It's not like one can say that capitalism is socialism, because there are many definitions. "Either way, I think we all get his point. What should be controlled by the state, and what should be left to individual businesses in a market environment? At that point you're just nit-picking, GenPol." That doesn't imply socialism. State ownership doesn't imply socialism. There are definitions, conditions and boundaries within which socialism is defined. Please research this topic.

The Third Way is pretty decent, although I prefer social democracy.

The Soviet Union had great potential but Stalin was a cunt

[QUOTE=GenPol;36399591]"There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism." It doesn't mean that socialism is still defined within defined boundaries. It's not like one can say that capitalism is socialism, because there are many definitions. "Either way, I think we all get his point. What should be controlled by the state, and what should be left to individual businesses in a market environment? At that point you're just nit-picking, GenPol." That doesn't imply socialism. State ownership doesn't imply socialism. There are definitions, conditions and boundaries within which socialism is defined. Please research this topic.[/QUOTE] Socialism is the theory associated with common ownership and production in the wide community, just leave it at that. Stop trying to start stupid arguments, two posts in and you haven't even started to answer the actual point of debate. Now I'm going to have to myself because I just posted this and otherwise I'd be a hypocrite. [editline]20 June 2012[/editline] I believe a country should be leaning more towards the capitalist side and working towards free markets rather than the socialist side, however I do believe in [B]social policy[/B]. Education should not be something left to the market to provide, same for law enforcement and healthcare. Unrestricted access to those three elements I consider to be human rights.

[QUOTE=Pelvic Thrust;36401874]The Soviet Union had great potential but Stalin was a cunt[/QUOTE] It's unfair that people use him as the prime example for communism, considering he wasn't in any way a real communist and his ideology is known as being 'red fascism', yet no one manages to separate true communism from stalins bollocks.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;36401899]Socialism is the theory associated with common ownership and production in the wide community, just leave it at that. Stop trying to start stupid arguments, two posts in and you haven't even started to answer the actual point of debate. Now I'm going to have to myself because I just posted this and otherwise I'd be a hypocrite.[/QUOTE] No. You forgot a second defining criteria. The second one is production for use, or in other words, production to fulfill the use values of the population, instead of maximizing profit. It's astonishing how many people act so arrogantly and aggressively, and think that they know it all, while they actually don't.

[QUOTE=GenPol;36402057]It's astonishing how many people act so arrogantly and aggressively, and think that they know it all, while they actually don't.[/QUOTE] Oh the irony of this statement. Weren't you just in the other thread labeling your opponents views as "retarded" and implying that you'd do some type of harm to them if you were in power?

[QUOTE=Pelvic Thrust;36401874]The Soviet Union had great potential but Stalin was a cunt[/QUOTE] Yes, but it was the system that allowed someone like that to have that much power in the first place. Joseph Stalins are everywhere, it's just a matter of whether or not the have access to power.

[QUOTE=Noble;36402114]Oh the irony of this statement. Weren't you just in the other thread labeling your opponents views as "retarded" and implying that you'd do some type of harm to them if you were in power?[/QUOTE] I'm not sure about harming people, but he does tend to call people retards. And as we have already seen here, nitpick about definitions all day long.

[QUOTE=Lord_Ragnarok;36406970]Yes, but it was the system that allowed someone like that to have that much power in the first place. Joseph Stalins are everywhere, it's just a matter of whether or not the have access to power.[/QUOTE] Russia was the last place Marx expected Communism to pop up. He believed that communism would start in highly industrialized nations with a stable democracy like the UK or France. Russia was still feudalistic by 1900. It wasn't communism that allowed Stalin to take over, Russia was never truly Marxist in the first place. It's like saying capitalism allowed Hitler or Mussolini to rise to power.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;36408869]Russia was the last place Marx expected Communism to pop up. He believed that communism would start in highly industrialized nations with a stable democracy like the UK or France. Russia was still feudalistic by 1900. It wasn't communism that allowed Stalin to take over, Russia was never truly Marxist in the first place. It's like saying capitalism allowed Hitler or Mussolini to rise to power.[/QUOTE] This [I]is[/I] true. Marx clearly stated that a nation would have to start industrialized in order to be able to provide for their people.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;36408869]Russia was the last place Marx expected Communism to pop up. He believed that communism would start in highly industrialized nations with a stable democracy like the UK or France. Russia was still feudalistic by 1900. It wasn't communism that allowed Stalin to take over, Russia was never truly Marxist in the first place. It's like saying capitalism allowed Hitler or Mussolini to rise to power.[/QUOTE] He was pretty stupid to think that it would happen in a democratic nation, it was the extending of suffrage to the middle and working classes in the UK that satisfied people enough not to revolt.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36411022]He was pretty stupid to think that it would happen in a democratic nation, it was the extending of suffrage to the middle and working classes in the UK that satisfied people enough not to revolt.[/QUOTE] Lmao Pack your bags boys, the marxists are defeated.

[QUOTE=Conscript;36417635]Lmao Pack your bags boys, the marxists are defeated.[/QUOTE] Well they pretty much were considering there hasn't been a single marxist revolution anywhere in the world.