This is the second time a thread has been started for this video.

Anybody care to make it three?

@ Jamie

Not at all. The greatest success of capitalism is that it recognises that some people are greedy (all of us to a certain extent, although by any meaningful definition not that many) and puts those people to good use for the benefit of all. Socialism instinctively tries to fight greed, and does so (with some success, in fairness) at a huge cost of resources.

The end result is that people under a good capitalist system are generally better off, but have to put up with a few obnoxious arseholes swaggering about and drinking all the champagne. It is a price worth paying.

Are you suggesting that capitalism is not wasteful, Octavious?

That very much depends on how you define waste. Taking what I think is the most wildly held definition I would say it is both more productive and more wasteful than competing systems, with people ending up with lots of crap they don't need, but also ending up with more of the stuff they do need and more of the stuff that makes life worth living.

@ Octavious I would disagree there, there are many capitalistic countries who is not doing so well. I would say that the better system is to use socialism to control the capitalism from running wild. Pure capitalism is doomed and fail system just as communism. You have to mix of different system.

If people dont understand that they have to share some of the resources to improve the sociality so everybody can move forward then that society will become worse of. A focus on capitalism will lead to corruption and a system of those who are well off and those who are desperate for more. And desperate people will do what they need to do to get what they want ( break the law for it etc)

Socialism is obviously against the greedy.

Other than that, socialism is about capitalism too. I think socialism should serve to prevent extreme poverty and stimulate economy.

It's usually executed inefficiently though. I think it's better to just tax people partly based on wealth, like now, and simply give everyone the same sum of money used to make the poor a bit richer. It works and not so much money is wasted. Of course there should be exceptions where people get more or less, but I think the idea would provide a solid basis.

Also, name one capitalist country in which the poor are richer than in socialist countries.

That's a very poorly formulated question. In absolute wealth, in many capitalist countries. Relatively to the rest of the society - now that would be something different. Expect to be trolled ;)

@ Orjan

I agree. Pure capitalism, much like pure alcohol, ain't all that fun. I imagine that most people, when arguing in favour of capitalism, have some kind of restricted version in mind when they say it. I suspect that what I would call capitalism would have to much of the left about it than your average American would be comfortable with. I'm something of a supporter of the NHS, for example, and appreciate the BBC.

My support of the privatisation of Royal Mail, the utilities, and (at the risk of starting a topic I'd rather avoid) the motorways, on the other hand, would lead many Brits here to consider me a right wing lunatic :p

lol. This thread is funny. Well, since most of you are beyond convincing, I do hope America or some other country you live goes to shit, becomes your socialist wetdream, and then when you finally *experience* your dream society, you will see its a complete failure.
Only reservation is that you shove your wetdreams cum down everyone else's throat. You are free to be socialist in a purely capitalist society (ex. Cooperatives etc.) but are not free to be capitalist in your BS.
That is all.

Proposal for discussion.
Base Physiological needs should be socialized - Water, Air, Fruits & Vegetables.
Next threshold of Physiological needs should be socialized with conditions - some kind of voluntary safety-net housing that comes with job placement/skill set consultancy, and Internet connectivity. During this time you also work for a Job Core.
Anything above this; i.e. "fancy" food, "fancy" clothes are run via Capitalism.

Same idea of a tiered structure goes for Education and Health Care - These should be socialized at the foundation and focus on basic education and preventative health care. Access to higher levels of education and non-preventative health care has conditions you need to qualify for - i.e. good grades, low BMI during check-ups... If you don't prove you understand the basics then society doesn't need to pay for you to get the advanced stuff.

In Science the Government is developing the cutting edge stuff (i.e. space flight), but we put a program in place as the technology is developed to privatize the technology. The Government get's to do all the "firsts", but then as the tech is tested moves on to the next frontier, letting the public figure out what to do with it.

Electronics, Art and Entertainment are all Capitalist.

Just some ideas - I'm not solid on this, and appreciate other opinions... The details above are just first blush, but the point is that no one should be "we need a Capitalist or Communist or Socialist society" - we should see these as tools to implement into the right sectors or industries... I think we just need to get some level of agreement of where those thresholds are.

Thoughts?

"You are free to be socialist in a purely capitalist society (ex. Cooperatives etc.) but are not free to be capitalist in your BS."

And therein lies the true irony: How many of these wanna-be Socialists ever truly live their lives by their philosophy? Or do they live their personal lives as good capitalists and point at everyone else and tell them to be socialist?

Most Liberals have glorious plans...for everyone **else's** hard work and money...

"You are free to be socialist in a purely capitalist society"

WHAT AM I READING??!

"when you finally *experience* your dream society, you will see its a complete failure."

Scandinavia?

@ Krellin:

1. Liberalism and socialism are two different things.

2. I'm a socialist and a strong advocate of sustainable development. I work in the public sector, working to build sustainable environmental, social and economic outcomes into major public contracts for goods, works and services - getting extra from suppliers to give added value outcomes to society in our local area. Do I meet your criteria for "living by my philosophy"?

Socialism has nothing to do with greed. The 'socialism' in the video has nothing to do with socialism. (And 'America' ≠ the United States.)

Will 'socialism' ever be implemented in the United States? Maybe, but citizens must first be convinced to support those suffering unfairly from society or the elements.

@Jamie - Socialism is the ideology that most Liberals in America strive for. I understand they are different..“Capitalism” and “Conservatives” are different…but “Conservatives” generally strive for our society to be more “Capitalist”. I’m not sure what you don’t understand about the connection between modern Liberalism and Socialism

@JECE -- I think socialism has **everything** to do with greed, because it's generally a bunch of people pointing at other people that may have more than them and saying "I WANT SOME OF THEIRS...."

They couch it in the terms of "fairness", but plain and simple, it's greed for what someone else may have, that you want, and haven't worked for.

"I'm a socialist and a strong advocate of sustainable development"

These have *absolutely nothing* to do with each other. A pure capitalist is also in favor of sustainable development, in fact.

@Jamie...oh, and no, what you get paid to do hardly makes you a person living by his philosophy. If you are a true socialist, what do you do with your *personal wealth* and the *unpaid time* to spread the wealth and works to others? If you spend 8 hours a day "being a good *paid* socialist" and spedn the next 16 hording your wealth for your personal excessive consumption, then you are hardly living by your stated philosophy. And this is how most Liberal live..."YOU, over there, DRIVE THIS CAR" as he hops in to his private jet and drives his gas-guzzling SUV home to his dwelling that far exceeds his actual living space needs and won't plant a garden to grow his own food (saves on energy consumption to transport food), etc. Most Libs, most wanna-be lefties, love to instruct others on the deficiencies of their lifestyle, while living that exact same lifestyle themselves.

Socialism in its purer forms results in a complete lack of freedom. Capitalism is the same; in its purer variants it results in a complete lack of freedom.

Under a socialist system, my wealth is essentially stolen from me and given to someone else, which is an encroachment on my freedom to accumulate wealth. Under a capitalist system, my wealth is essentially stolen from me and given to someone else, which is also an encroachment on my freedom to accumulate wealth.

Socialism = everyone gets fucked by the government
Capitalism = everyone get fucked by corporations (whoever has the most capital)

Personally, I'd favor a society in which the small business is empowered instead of beaten down by regulations or bigger companies. I'd even be willing to sacrifice some of my libertarian ideals in the interests of anti-trust laws (preferably at the state level, but beggars can't be choosers)

However, no change will happen as long as the American public is pacified by our corrupted media. There's an awful lot of money holding up the status quo, and the media is the instrument of corporate and government power. It appears that the pen may actually be mightier than the sword when it comes to pacifying the United States. The country that will never fall to foreign swords has fallen to domestic pens.

Btw, you clearly don't understand what socialism is, given that you can have socialist systems without a large central government.

krellin: how about me? I am fairly wealthy, and in comparison fairly minimalistic, even in comparison to much poorer people. I hold on to my wealth. Why? So I can help the ones who need it when I come across them. That, and an idea I have for a better future that needs funding. I have plans with my money. I'm greedy for the world. So the world doesn't take and waste the money I plan to put to good use, for the poor. So do all the poor people. Even though it's against my favour, I would love governments to tax more to help the actually needy. That is, a small percentage of locals and, for example, the poor in 3rd-world countries that accept our us helping their poor. As it stands though, part of that money would go to JSFs and what not if it's taxed, and virtually nothing ends up helping the extremely poor. I get that. However, our system does keep our economy running. That allows people who want to help to actually help. Because the poor are usually more willing to help if they gain some wealth.

To put it another way: you can research cancer to save a couple of rich people, but you can also feed the poor in Africa for example, many of which dream of curing cancer. There's little room for that in 'pure' capitalism. Only the greedy get/stay rich.

I just see no future for a world run on 'pure' capitalism. Wars, famine, extreme discrimination... What does capitalism do about that? What does capitalism do to improve the world?

Socialism needs to be much more efficient, but I think it's best for everyone, including the richest man on earth. It just boosts the economy around the world, as long as it doesn't become communism; there has to be enough incentive to make your own money. Obviously.

You don't just need the incentive, you need the means too. That's why I basically say a social 'safety net' for everyone alive, enough to start building up your life. Other than that, capitalism is fine, although some levelisation (by lack of an excisting word? Or was that a lucky guess?) beyond that wouldn't harm either if you ask me...

Nothing like communism though.

steephie - you're full of crap and delusional. Pay more taxes if you want - you are free to make donations to your government. If you are "holding on to your wealth" because you have plans, then you sure as hell aren't a socialist, wherein your wealth is owned by everyone, and the decision on how best to spend it sure as heck isn't yours alone. Put it out there and let the needy masses have their collective way with it.

As for what capitalist do about starvation in Africa...they see hundreds of millions of potential customers, and they seek to improve their lives, utilize their labor, and sell them products. Of course a capitalist wants to see every human prosperous and healthy, because then they are consumers.

This fucked up asinine Liberal caricature of Capitalists as some evil monsters out to destroy the planet, collect all the wealth to themselves while people starve on the streets is *laughably* naive. If you are broke and starving, you won't buy my latest gadget. You people need to actually exercise a little logic before you start making ridiculous statements about what capitalism means. I don't think any of you understand it, based upon the ridiculous statements above.

krellin: Wrong, that is not socialism.

Next?

@JECE....<buzzer> WRONG. It has everything to do with socialism. What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine...Dr. Krellin, will you please spend 22 years in school and do surgery on me when I need it and...by the way...you are entitled to no more than I am, because I was born.

Greedy little bastards...

It's funny that there are not a lot of wealthy Socialists (unless they are going to be in the ruling class and plan on keeping their wealth), but there are a lot of under-achievers who think social sharing of wealth is just great!!

Sorry...if your ideal society is one in which you get an equal share of everyone else's work, then you are a greedy little bastard, period.

The problem here is that you seem to consider socialism to be just communism, krellin. I am talking about a way to level the wealth a bit to improve everyone's life.

I don't think my wealth is owned by everyone. Read the post instead of a word. You didn't react to my post at all, you just told me that you think socialists are just communists. I think 'pure' capitalism is just as stupid as 'pure' communism.

@ mendax

"Btw, you clearly don't understand what socialism is, given that you can have socialist systems without a large central government."

It's not just about a large central government, it's about an entity stealing my wealth and giving it to someone else. Is it considered "taxation" if I mug you? Of course not; it's correctly considered armed robbery. What if a gang of me and my friends rob you? Is it "taxation" yet? Nope, still armed robbery. What makes the government special? What distinguishes the government from a group of citizens? Why does the government get to commit armed robbery under the misnomer of "taxation"? President Calvin Coolidge was correct when he asserted that any taxation beyond absolute necessity is robbery.

Call me a selfish bastard, but I'm all for throwing everyone under the bus. The government should not care for the poor, the sick, the needy, or the elderly. Private citizens can do it if they see fit.