Forum Post: Social-Capitalism the way back to sanity
Posted 12 years ago on April 19, 2012, 7:30 p.m. EST by elf3
(4203)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Socialism prevents Corporatism (which is not Capitalism or free market but monopolization and destructive and stifles innovation) Capitalism prevents Communism (picture Orwell Animal Farm and China) - they repel each other in a good way - we need equal parts; if one gains to much hold then the system falls down. Corporatism and Communism are in essence the same thing
Corporatism is more akin to fascism (technically speaking, but of course it's a matter of degree, practically speaking), and I think socialism could just as easily accommodate corporatism (I see no natural reason why one would preclude the other). Something like syndicalism and direct democracy, on the other hand, could end corporatism, while avoiding authoritarianism (although you could wind up with tyranny by the majority).
Back to the drawing board with your definitions, logic and conclusion.
" Corporatism and Communism are in essence the same thing"...?????? Bro please, try again.
yes they are both equally bad ... We need equal parts capitalism (but not corporatism) and socialism (but not communism) ...Balance
All we need is a general public that gives a shit. It cures EVERYTHING.
Take a look at the leading nation in the European Union. Germany and the majority of European Countries are what would be best described as Social Capitalists, they encourage private enterprise and private wealth creation but impose high levels of taxation in order to fund extensive social provision.
They are not communists, and never were.
"Corporatism and Communism are in essence the same thing" Absolutely not. It seems like you don't know what communism is. Communism is a stateless, classless, and moneyless society, just to let you know.
The two, corporatism and communism are both linked to state control, so I do see a point here. However why support capitalism at all?
Why do capitalist need to own vast resources, that rightfully belong to us all? We can collectively own the land/resources (socialism), and use them for the benefit of everyone. I know the pro-capitalist argument that 'freedom is ownership',. I just don't see it. It seems that ownership is anti-freedom.
Socialism, of course, has a negative connotation in America (this is largely an american affliction, due to capitalist propaganda, built into our culture, not so much in the rest of the world) Most of the world see the benefits of collective ownership of natural resources, the resources are still used, but no individual profits profusely in the utilization. Free markets can still work in a socialist society, calling the system socialist does not define the economic system fully, it is vague term really, and it leave much room for innovation and new idea to flourish. Simply taking the robber barons out of the equation frees up so many resources. We will have so much more to work with, when we are not paying banksters, hedge-fund managers, and corporate executives 8 figure bonuses.
Socialism is linked to to state control just as much as the other two.
right because what happens when someone doesn't hold up their end? Who decides who does what Or what happens if someone takes a little too much? - it leaves a lot of room for corruption just like in a corporate state a socialist state will fray unless there is some incentive to continue - personal gain or balanced with capitalism. What if I hate my neighbors and I decide if I did things alone I would get more? What happens if I end up doing more than them and get less than I should? If you could rid greed from the human heart then it would work - unfortunately most human beings suck ass and are greedy little putzes...I'd wager only 2 percent of the population is worth knowing. Do i really want to labor on their behalf while they sit back and reap the benefits? nor do i want a corporate state. Same systems which is why I always laugh when Wall Street bags on Communism. We are all just collectively working for them now instead of the state. They have killed the free market and they are Orwell's pigs.
-capitalism is private ownership, (makes no claims of democracy)
-socialism is collective ownership with democratic control of the collective resources
-communism is collective ownership administered by the state/great leader (makes no claims of democracy)
Socialism actively promotes democracy. (and I support only participatory consensus democracy not the joke we call democracy now!) How can we have democracy (or does it even matter) if 1% own the bulk of every thing? Such as in capitalism, what we have now,. .
Democratic control and socialism dont have to be linked.
Look at all our social programs now. Do we have a say in them?
You actually have a pretty good point. The difference is that corporations are owned by individual people, who vote on issue. The communist collectives don't allow the individuals to have a say in the running of the collective. It is always controlled by a central bureaucracy.
Corporatism and capitalism is NOT the same thing! Read a book!