Wrong questions. Both political ideas are about accumulation of wealth, which is bad. So both systems are equally disruptive. Chernobyl and Fukushima? Soviet heavy industry or Houston petroleum economy? What a mess, but depression time is over, so whining does not help...

+100000 Kreto and Teamguns

Burn The Heretics!!

noone clicked my links :(

OP's lack of understanding of socialism is baffling, wich makes me think that he is:
1)an idiot, 2) uninformed, or 3) insincere

Edited 2/9/2016 11:49:06

or

4) American

merica, f*** yeah...

"Second, you don't know what socialism is, you described communism. "

Communism: the common ownership of the means of production

Socialism: socialism is defined as public ownership of the means of production

Tell me again the major difference between the two. The two are almost identical, which is why it is highly amusing when people say Communism is bad, but socialism is good. They are the same in all but name.

"OP's lack of understanding of socialism is baffling"
Please do tell, how would you define socialism? Not as I did, certainly; those pesky little definitions always get in the way, don't they.


"Capitalism has systematic flaws that can only be avoided through regulation, and that's a fact, get over it if you don't believe it. "
Yes, of course it does. The point I am trying to make is that that regulation is NOT socialism, nor is redistributionism. It makes me angry when people say that regulation is socialism and every system needs some of both, because you can't mix them. And to say it isn't a pure capitalist system because of regulation is stupid, because private individuals still control the means of production.

General PE is a clear ignorant believing Socialism :

                                                      
          ,                    
         ,@,                                             
        ,@@@,                   
       ,@@@@@,            
`@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@`                                     
  `@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@`                                       
    `@@@@@@@@@@@`                                         
   ,@@@@@@`@@@@@@,                                        
   @@@@`     `@@@@                                        
  ;@`           `@;                                       
    _   _   _   _                                         
   (   (   (   |_)                                        
    ~   ~   ~  |   

"Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix"

Social democracy ever heard of this?

Do you consider France currently led by the Parti Socialiste (French Socialist Party) as non capitalist?

No, they are redistributionist/regulationist, not truly socialist. They just use socialism as a name to garner support among uneducated people ignorant of its true meaning.

"Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy with social ownership of the means of production."

In effect, socialism with a democratic government. They still use the socialist system of ownership of the means of production.

They just use socialism as a name to garner support among uneducated people ignorant of its true meaning.

After reading this, you realize that you still don't get the very concept of Socialism and its different existing forms.

Read Jean Jaurès would you, then we shall discuss.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Jaur%C3%A8s

Can you explain how supply creates demand(One of the main tenants of Monetarism, the economic idea he founded)?(I just want to understand the viewpoint)

I think the answer is pretty simple, though my explanation may be incorrect.

In terms of innovation, new technology (supply) creates a new demand for a product (demand). For example, on July 25th, 1978 the first test tube baby was created in England (Louise Brown). This created a new sector for medical and reproductive technology - namely in vitro fertilization. Thus scientists helped to create research that was the foundation for birth clinics that offered couples who traditionally could not have children the opportunity for in vitro fertilization and surrogate motherhood. The demand was not created for the technology until the actual product was created by scientists. This idea could apply to other new technology innovations to come: phones, computers, tablets, online shopping. No one thought these technologies were possible, so there was no real demand for them (on a mass consumer scale anyhow).

Edited 2/9/2016 15:38:20

Not going to enter the big discussion and take a minor derail on a subject mentioned on the thread:

Education can never be governmental.

Any sort of governmental education automatically is worthless.

Countries in which public schools are preferred over private schools *conveniently* have a much higher suicide rate than the ones in which private schools are the option for anyone capable of paying it.

The public school system is basically a suicide inducer, because middle school and high school is an eternal game of social interactions goes parallel with the studies, forcefully lowering the grades of every single student and as such the quality of the studies. This deeply impacts some people's lives by making them feel excluded, useless, worthless or anything else, as well as make even the ones who don't go through that have a constant problem due to grades.

In governmental schools, due to the lack of any payment, less people actually care about their grades, and more actually care about that eternal battle for social recognition and attention. And the culture shocks between rich and poor only makes it worse, as the poor people want to look rich and pretend their living condition is of the 1%, while the rich kids will want to try and look autonomous and street-wise.

In other words, any form of mass education will fail if they give opportunity for social interaction. The only ways I can see education being perfect is either have every student have a classroom and teacher all for himself (impossible) or seeking to strain the social part of schools (best option seems like virtual classes, tbh).

I'll never support free education becuase education as a whole has a lot to improve and any funding should go towards these improvements. This might sounds like (you guessed it!) elitist, but honestly, it is the truth. While schools have all these issues with social interactions, the more open they are, the more damaging they are to the students.

The schools here that tend to get amazing grades (and no one dies during the courses from suicide, car accident while drunk or murdered) are the ones that require both doing a ridiculously tough entrance test AND pay. It actually feels worth it to have a classroom with 10 people, everyone can ask and they're all friends among themselves, so there's no popularity strifes or anything. Just study, study, study, and on free time, enjoying their day as they'd like, not as their classmates would like. Happy students, with great grades. Sadly, I never got to personally experience such.

General PE, there are a lot of forms of capitalism and a lot of forms of socialism. Your conception is based in the initial theories about what Marx supposed that the world would probably become. The evolution of the ideas of socialism has more then 150 years. Even the capitalism has a lot of different forms, some of this forms are mixed with some ideas of socialism.

You could imagine it as how the christianism is today: catholicism, lutheranism, orthodoxism, pentecostalism and a hundred others are all christians. Dont think that the socialism (or even the capitalism) is a unique form and there is only an A or a B.

Sometimes i see another thing, and im curious if its normal in the USA: people really reduce the most complex things to only two options? Sometimes it seems to me that you need to chose between capitalist or socialist, democrat or republican, pepsi or coke, pro or con abortion, gay rights, evolution, etc..
(im not criticising or saying you are wrong, its just curiosity)

JaiBharat, in some ways you are right: a lot of things that we buy there is really not needed, you only create the demand because there is supply. BUT, its not always that way, a lot of times it doesnt work (a lot of companies bankrupt because of that) and sometimes it create HUGE problems (this is one of the main reasons (or the main) that the Great Depression of 1929 happened.

The main reason was people not knowing the time to stop. What kept companies afloat was the stock market, their actual value was much inferior to the nominal value. If they knew this, they wouldn't have made a ridiculously large stock (supply) for the little to no demand (making new, creative fridges, ovens and stuff when basically every american capable of buying them already had one).

High supply to demand ratio was the problem (the reason why everyone went bankrupt so quickly), but not the foundation of the problem. That was general stupidity. I mean, it all blew up because some random guy just decided it was a good time to sell everything he has at once. And that was it. ._.

@[AOE] JaiBharat909, I suspected it worked like that as an advertising stuff creating demand, the more people know about something, the more they will have a mind about it and thus decide if they want something or not. It will always create demand to some extent.


As for you, GeneralPE, I still believe you're ignorant about socialism. Socialism is different from communism, which is supposed to be an "upgrade" from socialism.

Socialism is bad because of dictature it needs to have to exist. Gvnt must seize all properties and control the media to avoid unrest and the collapse of the hole "revolution".

Communism is really a theorical belief where the property is not owned anymore by a gvt, but rather by it's workers, because there is NO GVT.

Now tell me that a society with an omnipotent state is the same as one without one, and I'll tell you: BULLSHIT.


As for France, I'm kindda french, and I'll say that what you said is highly uncorrect. The socialist party in France is actually making a shift to the center because of terrorism and bad economic results on the last few years. Now a few corrections:

1) France is still, to some extent, a democratic socialist country, but I affraid we're slowly losing a few of the benefits every year.
2) The socialist party is really in turmoil because of this, a third of the congressmen and senators declared they were against this shift and many more might not like it but haven't still stated it.
3) French people aren't dumb (at least supporters of the left, I won't say the same for the ones supporting the far right). The socialist party will get crushed in the next elections, he has already lost regional and the european ones.

But still, France is an amazing place to live, and I'll do college there, I'll vote for the socialists, because the right and the far-right are total morons (even though our right is far better then your republicans) and I'll hope that the social system built on the last decades might resist.

I suspected it worked like that as an advertising stuff creating demand, the more people know about something, the more they will have a mind about it and thus decide if they want something or not. It will always create demand to some extent.

Well what I'm trying to say is that technological innovation is the source of demand and supply. But I think supply (at least in our current times) comes before demand. No one wanted a cell phone before the first cell phone because no one (except a handful of scientists, computer engineers, and Defense Department people) thought it was possible or feasible consumer item. However as soon as it became marketable the demand was created.

No one wanted Chipotle until Chipotle was created. No one wanted Pizza until Pizza was created. No one wanted a vacuum cleaner until a vacuum was created. No one wanted Uggs until uggs were created. I think you get the point.

Zeph, your opinion on the School system and the Social part of it is quite interesting tbh, in France like most of the Western World nations the problem you pointed out cannot be neglected. But I would say your vision of this system is truncated, since in countries like China or South Korea, despite being hundred in a class, you wont have the problem of social interactions going parallel with the studies lowering the grades of every single student and as such the quality of the studies. Why? The answer is culture.

It is not about changing the school system, but changing our culture, the education first inherited from the parents/family, the ethics, the moral, etc. This is my opinion so of course you can disagree with me.

And Zephyrum, your concept of public education makes no sense.

Canada, Finland and Germany. Those three countries have good school global ratings. Most of the system is public and has a lot of gvnt inside of it.

The US has bad school global ratings. The country is rich, but the public system is fucked up, because government doens't give a shit about it's poor students.


It's stupid not to have good public schools. You just lose many potential genius because of them not going to proper schools. I won't go further on the subject to tell you how this is bad, it's too long to explain.

And as money making people want to study more, I don't think so. I was in one of the best schools in Brazil (private, and only allowed to people knowing how to speak french). We had very good teachers, facilities and very little classes (we were 20).


But I'll tell you the truth. There was people on my class that didn't give a fuck for school. They had bad grades, slept in classes, lied to their parents about their grades telling it was the school's fault, didn't gave teachers the respect they deserved and worst of it, lacked will to improve.
Seems a lot familiar to public schools huh? Well, the difference is that half of my class were good students and worked hard. I just feeled bad we couldn't just change the other half for students in public institutions, that would greatly apreciate to have a good school and future perspectives other then the shitty ones offered to poor people in Brazil.

TeamGuns I'm interested how you explain the significantly better education received by the Japanese and South Koreans even though they spend less or about equal to the amount spent by the USA. I think this confirms what Zeph and Koala were saying: culture, work ethic, and family life matters in determining how successful an education will be for any given child.

Link - http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/11/25/national/public-education-spending-japan-lowest-oecd-sixth-straight-year/

Japan spends the lowest in the OECD (developed countries) on Education and South Korean spending is equal to the USA, yet they get better results.