Socialism 101: private vs personal property.

[white_wolf]

I know the post I originally looked those up for was a joke, but I thought some here might be interested in reading this. It is the Communist Manifesto on property, hopefully it'll help clear up a few misconceptions. If you want you can read it here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm Here you go: "We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power."

[Curmudgeoness]

1. Excuse me. When did Socialism and Communism become the same thing?

I'm getting confused here.

:crazy:

[white_wolf]

2. Communism has always been a type of Socialism.

It could be argued that it was the original one, and even more democratic socialists will likely admit to being influenced in some ways by Marx.

[Curmudgeoness]

3. Communism is the extremist view of Socialism.

At least that is the way I see it. Kind of like today's US is an extremist view of Capitalism.

[white_wolf]

4. It is really hard to classify all communism as extremist simply because

there are a so many different types of communism. If you want to read about more democratic styles I suggest Luexembergism or Trotskyism, though Trotsky is the more militant of the two.

[joshcryer]

11. In Marxist theory (I should say; regarding my other comment), communism is the result of socialism.

For anarchists libertarian socialism and anarcho-communism are effectively the same.

[joshcryer]

10. Communism is the end result of socialism, socialism was to be the "transition" phase.

[Igel]

22. Saint-Simon.

I don't recall him being a communist. Sort of socialist/state capitalism, but utterly utopian (which is exactly where I'd expect to find it, en ou topoi).

[bbinacan]

5. Well that's worked so well

:eyes: :rofl:

[white_wolf]

7. It has never really been tried.

Stalin hijacked the Russian Revolution and all other groups that have gained power have been backed by his Soviet Union, so they followed his lead.

[bbinacan]

8. That's called human nature

and will never work.

[white_wolf]

9. Not all types of communism relies on a dictatorship.

Even Trotsky's didn't.

[bbinacan]

12. Human nature

always reverts to capitalism.

[white_wolf]

13. Does human nature really exist?

Some would argue that what we call human nature is simply a result of our environment.

[Confusious]

16. Spoken like a true believer

ignore 5,000 years of history

ignore multiple cultures

and ignore the fact that, though the enviornment was different, humans have always acted basically the same in those 5,000 years and cultures.

[white_wolf]

18. Wait, you say capitalism has always existed?

It didn't come into existence into the Industrial Revolution. Also, there have been a lot of cultures that embraced a more egalitarian systems.

[Confusious]

27. i said nothing of the sort. that would be a straw man.

i just said that humans always act basically the same, no matter which time or which culture, which is human nature.

[white_wolf]

28. Wrong.

Humans do not always act in self-interest. As, others have suggested study Anthropology. The myth that greed rules the world is just that, a myth.

[KittyWampus]

29. I studied Anthropology. And in every culture that was not capitalistic there was a RELIGION

dictating behavior on all levels.

The Beauty/Curse of Capital is that it allows individuals of widely varying world views to interact freely.

And that freedom includes freedom from ethics. That is why capital must be regulated.

[Confusious]

31. yes, i'm sure there are exceptions to the rule

there always aree. but for the most part, humans always act the same, which is human nature.

i guess we could go back to being hhunter gatherers, but then we'd have no need of communism either.

[socialist_n_TN]

39. Hunter gatherer cultures WAS communism.....

in it's purest form.

This human nature crap gets thrown out every time somebody wants to try something different.

The biggest difference between the right and the left politically is about human nature. The right thinks that everybody believes in screwing over people every chance they get because THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD DO. The left realizes that there are people like that out there that have to be controlled, BUT most people AREN'T like that.

The left, especially the socialist left, has a word for those types of non empathetic, screw you I've got mine types. We call them capitalists.

[Confusious]

42. Oh please

if communism worked, then so would every other half-baked social scheme like libertarianism.

The reason they don't is human nature. It is the rarest gem to find someone who is TOTALLY honest.

[snooper2]

78. You don't think the hunters kept the pieces of meat for themselves?

[socialist_n_TN]

80. Not if they wanted to share in the gatherers goods........

and not if they wanted a genetic advantage. And not if they wanted to eat when the mammoth broke their legs and they COULDN'T hunt. Early humans were cooperative from everything I've read. It was the only way that they could ALL survive.

[bobbolink]

24. Try reading some anthropology. Your assumptions are wrong.

[Confusious]

35. I read history

after reading about different empires, humans always act the same in an "civilized" society.

maybe they would act different in a hunter gatherer society, but we're to far along to go back, aren't we?

[bobbolink]

71. As I said, read some anthropology before you condemn humans.

[Confusious]

72. Why?

"civilized" humans always act the same, no matter which culture or time.

if my assumptions were wrong, history would be different. you can see the forces in play right now in the United States.

it doesn't take anthropology.

[coalition_unwilling]

38. You have got to be kidding me - are you at all familiar with the

culture and behavior of the indigenous pre-Colombian peoples of the western hemisphere? Many of these indigenous peoples practiced a form of 'communalism' that is directly at odds with your statement.

[Confusious]

56. I am talking about

civilization as we know it in the past 5,000 years. 5,000 years should have been a clue. recorded history. "civilized" history. hope that rattles the cobwebs.

[coalition_unwilling]

73. Pre-Colombian indigenous tribes existed up until 1492, i.e., 500 years ago. Or are you

defining 'civilization' in purely Eurocentric terms?

You may be due for some cobweb clearing of your own.

[Confusious]

74. defining 'civilization' in purely Eurocentric terms

yes.and not just euro-centric. China had a civilization, they probably acted the same. Japan had a civilization, and I know they acted the same. India had civilizations, mongols had civilizations, The muslims had civilizations. They all acted the same.

Even the Pre-columbians weren't so sweet, but we'll never know, since there was no "recorded" history.

[Prophet 451]

48. And they would be wrong

"Human nature" is a very complex mixture of inherent and enviromental causes.

[cali]

63. Yes, it really exists. It's not nature or nurture, it's nature and nurture.

[bobbolink]

21. Wrong again. I would suggest reading some anthropology, and studying different

cultures.

There are many cultures in this world that do NOT operate on capitalism.

This is the problem in OUR society... we see what we are, and decide that everyone is like us.

T'ain't true.

There are actually some healthy cultures in this world, unlike ours.

[joshcryer]

51. Hey bobbolink, you should check out "Nice guys finish first," when you get a chance.

It's really cool. :hi:

[happyslug]

32. Human nature is Communistic, for people value the COMMUNITY over the INDIVIDUAL

The real difference between Humans and Non-humans is the nature of Humans to work together as a team, being it a hunter-gather groups, farming groups, working together in a mill, or even working together on something like DU, it is all COLLECTIVE.

The Social insects are really the sterile off-spring of the Queen, who then breeds more queens to set up other nests. Thus Social Insects, bees, aunts etc, are NOT communistic, for they are NOT individuals working together to help each other, but a Queen producing off spring with the help of other off spring.

Herd Animals, Deer, Cattle, sheep, etc are also NOT animals working together for the common good, but individuals using the herd for their own gain (i.e. survival of themselves and their off-spring). The herd protect them, for their one of many, not that the herd works together. Lioness tend to live together in prides, but hunt more as individuals then as a team (and as individuals will opt for any available opportunity, including helping another lioness drop some prey). Lioness do hunt together but lack team work.

There are exceptions to the above concept, where you see a more communistic nature. Musk ox from a solid ring, shoulder to shoulder against any potential enemies (mostly wolves) with the calves of all the adults inside the circle. This is in many ways still each ox working to protect themselves, but doing so by working with others. Elephants females follow their mother, with the eldest female elephant leading the others on their search for food. The calves follow in the rear of their mothers. The Males as their mature are chased away and form male herds and do a similar actions (But tend to break up as female elephants go into heat). Wolves are one of most communal of animals, working together for the common good and NOT as individuals but as members of a team. I once watched a film where one pack went after a Caribou herd in Canada. Two wolves chased the herd for several miles, past two other member of the pack, who relieved the first two wolves and kept the Caribou herd moving. After several more miles the top Wolf cross the Herd and attack one exhausted member of the herd, the rest of the herd ran by that wolf and its victim and then the other wolves caught up and assisted in the kill. That is team work, any of the wolves by themselves could NOT have done it, it took all of them.

Humans are another team creature, we work as members of a team, we value the team for as a member of the team what the team can do is more then what each member could do by themselves.

Capitalism is a return to pre-human conditions, people working against each other, Socialism/Communism/support for the Community is what separates Humans from the rest of the Animals. Some Animals (Elephants, Wolves, Dolphins, Orcas and a few other) approach man in working as a team, but NOT to the extent of man.

Now, not everything can be do by a team, acting as a team, thus Capitalism had always been part of being Human, but secondary to being a member of the Community. Yes, someone who discovers a new form of food, will get the benefit of that food (as would his or her off springs and mate) but so will other members of the group for by Strengthening the group, the member who found the new food, strengthening themselves.

This is called the Capitalism-Communist dilemma, every human Society has had to face it. How much communism does a Society support and how much Capitalism does it permit. Does the Society leave the widow and orphans of the men who died to defend the tribe die for they have no Husband/Father to provide for them? Or does the Society provide for them, so their Husband/Father will risk his life to protect the group? Does the society permit the Husband/Children lack the support of a Wife/Mother do to the fact she gave her life to protect the group when the men were away? The answer is both cases NO, for society wants to encourage such self-sacrifice for the betterment of the group, a true Capitalist Human group would leave them die, for they are less fit to those fathers and mothers who left other to die but themselves ran.

Communism permit the building of thing used by the community as a whole, in ancient times, ships, today highways. Sometimes this is done with someone in charge, Capitalism likes to call Capitalism, but permitting the Railroads to be built in the 1800s required not only a lot of people working together for pay but also cooperation with Society in the form of tax deductions and other ways to encourage such development. Capitalist do NOT exist in a vacuum, they live off Society and are members of Society. Many have the benefit of having ancestors who were in the right place at the right time to make money, but most such people did so for Society permitted such concentration of wealth. Marx called this the stealing of labor by the Rich, but it was how to get things done when it was needed.

What is capitalism and what is Community property has varied over time. Some times it is better for things to be communal (Mostly in times of war and other disaster when people MUST work together to get through the rough times). Other times it is better for things to be done by individuals for they is no consensus of how things are to be done, so Capitalism is permitted to dominate an industry (The Railroad Industry was an example of this in the mid 1800s, the Government saw Railroads were good, but did not know how to organize them, so Society left individuals to organize them and left the various proposals compete against each other, till one or two systems won out, this lead to the Government taking over the railroads, either directly, as in most of the world, or through extensive regulations as in the US). The early paved roads in England followed a similar pattern, paved as private toll roads, then when it was seen which way to do it right, taken over and became the norm for Society).

When Capitalism has competition (i.e. Capitalistic firms are permitted to fail), Society prefers Capitalism, for any cost of failure is restricted to those that invested in that firm. When Competition does NOT exist AND it is deemed essential to society, that part of the economy comes more and more under Government Control and ownership. At the same time, if something the Government is in becomes more and more subject to Competition, the tend is for society to free the Society of control over that industry.

My point is Capitalism is part of Human Society, but it has always been secondary to the sense of Community. Socialism and Communism are just forms of that sense of Community. Capitalism and Community interact, but Society/Sense of Community must always be on top, for people are team players, for we accept the idea that we do better as a member of a team then as individuals. Thus it is NOT Capitalism that we revert to but Communism in the sense of being a member of a team in a community. We are seeing that is many families today, many families are falling back on members of their extended families for support given the drop in support from the Government (and according to Department of Labor Studies, 92% of all jobs are obtain through Friends and Relatives, thus more and more people are being more and more dependent on their Network of Relatives and Friends in this time of trouble).

We are seeing this reversion in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, people are rallying around their tribes/Clans Extended families, not to themselves. Thus the reversion is to the Community not to Capitalism for we are in rough times and can NOT risk losing, thus Community wins out over Capitalism.

[joshcryer]

17. Correct, stateless communism, for example.

The open source movement is communism in practice and it works quite well. The capitalists even like it. :hi:

[bobbolink]

19. No, its not. "Human nature" would have to be seen all over the world, in all societies, for that

to be true.

GREED and POWER is NOT universal. There are many societies where it isn't seen.

Human nature? NO.

However, GREED and POWER are praised and revered in capitalistic society, so you will find them in abundance in those societies.

Still, that is NOT human nature.. that is bred into those societies.

[bbinacan]

70. What societies? n/t

[Confusious]

75. Greed and power in the Roman societies

Greed and Power in the Japanese society. Greed an power in the Ottoman society. I can point to examples in each of those.

They are all the same. It's not just capitalistic societies.

In every major religion, they point out the greedy and power hungry for scorn, that's not a isolated thing, that's a human thing.

It didn't just pop up with the rise of capitalism.

[joshcryer]

15. That's really not true, the Marxian approach has been tried.

[Lance_Boyle]

76. Communism has been tried and continues to work in SMALL SCALE situations.

(Some?) Israeli kibbutzim are communist societies. Certain communal living groups in the US (I'm thinking in particular of "The Farm") are communist societies. It works very well in those instances. But the functional communism of the commune has never scaled to the level of a municipal government, much less a state.

[Odin2005]

6. I constantly try to explain this to people, but they never seem to get it.

[bobbolink]

25. I would suggest that in this atmosphere now, it won't be possible to use that terminology.

If socialists would, instead, listen to people and work on how best to meet their needs, they would find a lot of people willing to listen.

Instead, they are doing what never works... preaching a system.

[joshcryer]

14. I consider the distinction more like possessive property vs non-possessive property.

ie, you possess your house, your car, your bicycle, your toothbrush. You don't possess that second rental house you own, your bike rental shop, your toothbrush selling store.

However, historically the implementors of communism or socialism have had no problem expropriating houses from people, for the "greater good."

[TBF]

20. Plenty of "expropriating" going on with capitalism -

foreclosures, theft of 401K's, jobs ... the list goes on and on.

[joshcryer]

23. Absolutely, as Proudhon argued, Property is Theft.

That's why many anarchists see state communism as capitalism. Yeah, big shocker, but from our POV Cuba, North Korea, USSR, China, all capitalist.

[white_wolf]

26. Wouldn't Trotsky agree with the anarchist view on those states?

He called them deformed workers states, but some unorthodox Trotskyists argue that they were really state capitalists.

[joshcryer]

33. For some values of Trotsky.

But then we're in to Trotskism not Marxism.

[readmoreoften]

34. Trotsky is a Marxist. Stop throwing out Stalinist terminology without understanding it.

[joshcryer]

50. Those types of "Libertarian Marxism" or "Trotskism" are a wide enough difference from Marx...

...that one cannot put them in the same camp, and no state has implemented either. I was giving the poster the benefit of the doubt.

I'd piss on Trotsky's grave if I could.

The anarchists don't think that you can implement state socialism without it falling into depravity as it has so many times. Trotsky went to his grave believing that was wrong.

[readmoreoften]

36. That is correct. But here's the historical context:

Trotsky was murdered by Stalin in 1940. At the time, he hoped that they really just *were* deformed workers states, meaning that the workers still could easily take control again even with the Stalinist deformation--that maybe it was just a blip. Years and decades after Trotsky's death, however, it was clear that this was not the case, that something else was under foot. Thus, some Trotskyist interpreted his texts literally and called Cuba, China, and N. Korea "deformed workers states" and other people said, you've got to be kidding, this is a whole nuther thing and Trotsky would agree if he were alive today to reexamine his position on a materialist basis.

[joshcryer]

52. What "else" was under foot?

What is preventing, say, Cuba, from going from an autocratic state with strong central control in the work place, and moving to a democratic workers state?

I personally think Trotsky, if he were alive today, would drink the koolaid, and would fervently believe Cuba implemented it brilliantly.

[BOG PERSON]

67. otoh, anarchism is famously weak on economic theory

[readmoreoften]

30. Marx doesn't want to take away your iPhone. He wants to take away their control over

the water supply, the factories, and the means of production. Socialists don't think we should all share a toothbrush or something. There's a big difference between privatization and people's personal stuff.

[socialist_n_TN]

37. +1. Missed you lately read.........

Hope you've been well.

And yes, as usual you are on point in discussion.

[Imajika]

40. So are you against private property or not?

Because if I can't sell it then it isn't mine. I don't mind the government, where it is necessary, owning some land/property on everyone's behalf, but don't try to fool me into believing that it's somehow mine.

And just FYI, communism hasn't worked anywhere - ever. Period. Even Cuba is getting ready to allow for private ownership of properly to try to improve their basketcase economy. Communism is a complete and total failure of an ideology.

Democratic socialism on the other hand seems to work in some places. Though the reality is, the economies of the nations considered to be Democratic Socialists in places like Europe are still driven by the capitalist free market. Those nations just tax at a higher rate and spend more on social services - but they still rely on the market to generate the wealth they tax.

[white_wolf]

41. Communism hasn't existed anywhere.

Communism can only happen once the revolution has been spread across the world and the state, which is need to protect socialism, can be abolished. As for the USSR and every other "socialist" state, those were taken over by Stalinst opportunists. Just because they claimed to be building socialism, does not make it so.

[Imajika]

43. That's what communist true believers always say..

Heard it a million times. Communism hasn't worked anywhere YET, we just haven't done it right - so let's give it another go!

Sorry, but the problem is that to enforce the communist vision, massive coercion always ends up being required.

How do you run a "true" socialist democracy when the voters can simply go to the polls and elect free market capitalists who undo everything you've tried to build? You can't. So you must write constitutions that outlaw free market party's and prevent people from electing whoever they want - even if your system is a complete failure.

And you didn't answer the question, are you against private property or not? As I said, If I can't sell it I don't own it. I don't mind the government "owning" some things on behalf of all the people, but don't try to fool me into thinking it's actually mine.

Communism's last bastions are slowly coming apart. China barely even pretends anymore, Cuba is about to allow private properly in the hopes it can jump start their disaster of an economy and well, you've got places like North Korea which is the economic laughingstock of the world. Communism is just too inefficient, is not dynamic, stunts innovation and inherently discourages the kind of entrepreneur risk taking that leads to the next generation of advancement.

Many social democracies seem to work fairly well, but even then those economies are really market driven. They just use the capitalist system to generate wealth and then tax it at a higher rate than we do in order to fulfill a more generous social contract.

"Communism can only happen once the revolution has been spread across the world and the state, which is need to protect socialism, can be abolished."

Seriously? That ship has long ago sailed. Communists had their chance to spread the revolution many years ago, the problem is they couldn't produce a single stable, successful state which could be a model for others.

[white_wolf]

44. If you read the opening quote you know where i stand on property.

Paine might agree with me: "There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity on any part of it." As for your other points, I've already answered them. Capitalism is the proven failure. It reduces people to serfdom and slavery.

[Imajika]

46. Sorry, but living on government owned property...

...and claiming it is "the people's" will simply lead to folks to not caring about said property. You see this at pretty much every project, Indian Reservation and even many rental houses and apartments where people don't actually own the land. If I can't sell it, I don't own it. Period. And when people don't own it, they won't care about it as much as they would if they did.

If you don't believe in private property, then I am guessing you don't have any land or a house of your own. Maybe you just aren't very successful yet?

Capitalism is a proven failure? We are rich beyond our wildest dreams. You could argue that capitalism promotes inequality, but even then the poor in capitalist countries have it much better than their counterparts in communist countries.

If free markets are such a failure, why is it that all the communist experiments have either failed, collapsed, been overthrown or are otherwise moving in the capitalist direction.

Dude, even Cuba is about to allow private property. From today: Cuba says it will allow people to buy and sell their homes for the first time since the communist revolution in 1959.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-13125104

Communism is a failed ideology. It had its chance and couldn't produce one single stable, successful state. Not one.

[white_wolf]

47. Thoughout history most forms of democracy failed.

The Greek city-states gave way to various tyrannies, the Roman Republic gave way to the Roman Empire. Perhaps the Founders should have been content to stuck with a system that works, since after all democracy produced no successful states before they came along.

[Confusious]

57. Greece and the Roman Republic lasted a LOT

longer then the communist states. We can pick this up in oh, 300 years?

Britain has lasted a lot longer then that. The kings of Britain lost control of the purse strings oh, somewhere around king johns time. They could only ask for money, not levy taxes. The levy of taxes was parliaments job. That was what set the stage for the English civil war. The monarchs didn't want to ask the peasants for money, the peasants cut off their heads.

[snooper2]

79. serfdom and slavery...

really,

I'll have to walk down the aisle in this air-conditioned building to the break room. Then I'll tell everyone in there yapping around the coffee machine to get back to work fucking slaves. Also, those H1B guys playing ping-pong, they need to get back to writing some code as well.

[Prophet 451]

49. and the true believers are right

Communism, as Marx envisioned it, really hasn't been tried anywhere. I suspect that's because Communism as Marx envisioned it looks nice on paper but is unworkable in practice.

[Confusious]

58. +1

Lots of fantasies die when they meet reality... communism, libertarianism... etc

[joshcryer]

59. I still debate that. The Marxist approach has been tried.

It just fails as soon as you get to the whole "let's build a state to make sure these processes are implemented regardless of the will of the people" part. And it will never be realized in that vein. I think libertarian socialism still has a chance, however, and it will likely be attempted to be appropriated by tyranny loving Marxists...

[BOG PERSON]

69. massive coercion is required to "enforce" capitalism too

seriously, how else do you describe the slave trade, or colonization of the americas/africa/asia, or the enclosure acts, or the french revolution. yeesh.

[MedleyMisty]

45. I've been coming to that conclusion

I admit that I only just bought Capital tonight and haven't really read much theory - and I'm not naturally into theory or ideology or economics. I'm more emotional and intuitive and just want everyone to have a decent quality of life and to be free.

I figure - I supply the emotional touchy feely stuff to bring people over to the cause, and then the more logical rational math-minded people can do the economic theory. All personality types have their part to play. :)

But yeah - in thinking about it, it would have to be global to really work.

And I think the global revolution has started. It will take quite some time - who knows if it'll be finished in our lifetimes? But in my travels across Twitter, I see it beginning. I see a lot of talk by young people all over the world about ending corrupt governments, about ending capitalism. I see Egyptians and Libyans and Americans and Syrians and Bahrainis and Yemenis and English young adults, talking together. Sharing ideas with each other. And the ideas that bring them all together - an end to oppression and an end to corruption and species-wide solidarity.

Also an end to ideology. I do not think that the end result will be anything quite like a theory or ideology that has gone before, some idea that elitist white men came up with many years ago pre-internet. I think it will be something new.

[joshcryer]

54. The internet is completely changing the way global society functions, truly.

Technology is shaking shit up all over the place, it's an amazing time to be alive.

[joshcryer]

55. You should check out the "Kronstadt Rebellion" to get an idea of how...

...the socialists viewed the state suppression back then. The Bolsheviks could've changed history. If they did it the right way rather than the authoritarian way, we'd all be living in a very good version of socialism, but nope, they were authoritarian to the core, and indeed, power by itself is extremely corrupting.

[TBF]

60. Nice to see you MM -

I am much like you in that regard - the economic nuances are incredibly boring to me (but I know how important they are). I tend to read Lenin, Engels - stuff I can get my arms around easier.

Agree that it has to be international. Interesting to see Europe and the Middle East leading the charge. In the past year there have been protests in dozens of countries. We're just getting started over here.

On a personal note, hope you're doing well.

[cali]

64. lol. don't hold your breath.

this ain't and never will be, the best of all possible worlds, Mr. Pangloss.

[joshcryer]

53. Hey this is the second time Cuba has allowed for private businesses and ownership.

During times of plenty Cuba just expropriates everything back. Let's not kid ourselves, though, communism and capitalism are hardly different when implemented.

[Spike89]

61. In practice, they are symbiotic

"Pure" capitalism is much too corrosive and competitive--it requires social restraints and regulations. "Pure" socialism discourages initiative and innovation--it requires some rewards for risk takers. Any pure system is doomed to failure. The answer isn't a formula, but a pragmatic and continual balancing of social need and individual liberty/entrepreneurship.

[Book Lover]

62. Kick and rec

Thank you, WW, for doing the good work of education.

[ItNerd4life]

65. Thanks for giving the right more ammunition. nt

[white_wolf]

66. How have I given them more ammunition?

The Right doesn't need my help, they just make shit up. They have an endless of armory of bullshit.

[socialist_n_TN]

68. How is that more ammunition. Socialists are more popular........

than Congress anyway.

[upi402]

77. shhhh... old school Democrats are labeled socialists now

Only Republicans in the Dem party are not called socialist or liberal whack-jobs, it seems. I'm the same garden variety Dem that I was in the 70's and am an now extreme leftist.

And Jesus was a socialist anyhow so na-na-nabooboo :bronx cheer:

:rofl: joking around, of course!