Socialism is better for the economic security of the common man.

Capitalism is better for individual rights and liberties.

Socialism is better for the masses.

Capitalism is better for the individual.

Socialism is better for the losers.

Capitalism is better for the winners.

Socialism is better for the disadvantaged.

Capitalism is better for the advantaged.

Socialism is better for providing needs.

Capitalism is better for arts and culture.

Socialism promotes unity.

Capitalism promotes individuality.

Capitalism encourages the gift of charity from those who are able.

Socialism mandates charity, and doesn't call it a gift.

Socialism is better for providing basic health care to all.

Capitalism is better for providing advanced health care to those who can afford it.

Choose your economic system, but choose wisely.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is always black or white. Why do we have to chose between one or the other? Can't we have a social democracy with regulated capitalism? Where we take care of the bottom 1/4 and still allow the top 1% to earn as much as they can. Where we realize that the strong middle class is the most important aspect of a healthy economy. Most of the other industrialized countries have managed to find a way to improve the lives of their citizens without crippling their entrepreneur class.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I often ask the people with whom I discuss politics to define "liberal" "conservative" "democracy" and "republic." Very few can hit all four - although liberals do far better at it than conservatives.

Given that most Americans seem to think that "communism" is equivalent to "dictatorship" it's hard to imagine that many of the respondents understood the question.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This was a joke back in the day in the Soviet Union:

"What is the difference between capitalism and communism?

Under capitalism, man exploits man.

Under communism, it's the other way around."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Capitalism" and "free markets" are not the same thing. They aren't even the same KIND of thing. Markets are a mode of exchange, based on feedback via price. Capitalism is a mode of ownership, in which ownership and control lies outside the enterprise - e.g., with shareholders; or, for that matter, the government.

Nobody knows what "socialism" means; it's been misused to the point of meaninglessness. Marx defined it as ownership of the means of production by the workers; today, we call that "worker ownership". One common example would be the family farm, or anyone who's self-employed. There are two worker-owned retail chains in my town.

This does not include Communism, which was actually non-market capitalism (ownership outside the enterprise, and not by workers.)

So there can be non-market capitalism, like what we have, and market socialism, a much better option but little tried.

Which doesn't mean the people polled had any idea what the words meant. They're disgusted with the results of our present form of "capitalism", so they're willing to try something else. Maybe we should strike while the iron is hot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We are bombarded by propaganda in the US. Few in the US ever read Marx and therefore typically accept what they have been told by their teachers or journalists or economists. So what passes for definitions for capitalism and socialism in the US are, more or less, simple regurgitation of the same propaganda definitions. Under those definitions capitalism equals markets and has always existed since the beginning of time. Socialism is then contrasted with this misunderstanding to be the government control of the economy.

However, much of the distinction between these social formations can be traced to Marx. For Marx, capitalism was not the same thing as markets. Marx saw markets as existing for thousands of years. However, this new phenomenon of capital that he describes at great length across thousands of pages was a new social formation only forming within past few hundred years. Moreover it was only reaching its fully formed state in Britain as Marx was writing about the topic.

So for Marx, capitalism and communism were not about markets. They were also not necessarily about ownership of the means of production. The distinction he made was about the mode of appropriating and distributing surplus labor. In capitalism labor is performed collectively, but surplus labor is appropriated privately: i.e., it becomes the private property of the corporation and its corporate leadership. In contrast communism involves both the collective performance of labor alongside the collective appropriation of the surplus labor as well.

However stepping away from Marx a bit, I would say that socialism (as distinct from communism and private capitalism or state capitalism) is more a type of state government where the state (or portions of the state) is used not to oppress the public, but for the public’s benefit. Presumably a socialist government could exist alongside a mix of capitalist, communist and independent producing enterprises all exchanging commodities through markets.

That would mean the conservatives are right that social security and medicare are socialist or at least have socialist leanings. While other parts of the government are directed more at oppression and suppression of dissent. For example the labor department for several administrations and perhaps dating back to the new deal has been a largely capitalist sector of the government – suppressing organized labor and co-opting it to the needs of capital.

Similarly, the US military, homeland security and the dozens of intelligence offices are also directed toward capitalist oppression domestically and throughout the World.

To underscore how this is not about markets, consider the Federal Reserve System. This is a purely capitalist sector: where the financial markets are manipulated to undermine small banks and centralize financial assets into the hands of only a few corporate banking giants. On the other hand a socialized central bank, could facilitate a rich competitive market in finance, even supporting alternate currencies and reducing the frictional costs of commerce. Both are central banks, one a capitalist one serving the few and the other a socialist central bank serving the many.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

socialism o capitalism?

If a neutral point-by-point comparison were made during the survey, like socialism tends to favor universal health care funded by tax money and the elimination of the profit motive in medicine, while capitalism tends to favor private enterprise in the medical industry and a model where people purchase their own health care and those who can't afford it are left out, then I'd think more people who say they prefer socialism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Holland implies that socialism is when the state owns the means of production. This is ironic in an article that asks if people know what the terms socialism and capitalism mean.

If one thinks about workers owning the means of production, there is much more room for creativity in developing better systems than capitalism or communism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A social democracy as described above would absolutely be the way to go. As it stands now, Capitalism is a total failure. We need to go back at least to the ways the Government was run back in the 1950's. Few of you probably know how things were back then. I was in my early teens, and was always able to find work of all sorts for my extra want's, like a car. Yes, I bought my first car when I was 13, just by having a paper route and mowing lawns. By the time I was able to get my drivers license, I had two cars. A 46 Ford, and a 47 hudson, both in perfect shape. Life was great back then. I was in a middle class family and both my parents worked, and we had a decent home. Jobs were plentiful back then for everybody, if you wanted to work. By the time I was 21, I had a good job at Kraft Foods, and I drove a cab to make extra income. I also bought and sold real estate with my extra income. There was plenty of competition between Companys back then, and most of everything was made in the U.S.A. LAWS BACK THEN PREVENTED COMPANYS FROM MERGING AND CUTTING OUT COMPETITION. Unfortuately, Companys became greedy and paid the politicians to remove all our safeguards to our economy, which led us down the path to destruction, where we are now. I see no way now to restore what we had without great sacrifice and restraint, and the will to rebuild what we had. Maybe some form of socialism would make the transition back a little easier. It's something to ponder.
JOHN F. B.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

socialism doe not negate the Free market ideal. Infact it is exactly what our founders envisioned. Free Access to all citizens to buy and sell- thus encouraging real accessiblity to necessary resources and producer competition for those customers. something non existent in 'merry Ol' England'.You had no choice who you bought your corn from, nor was there any pressures to price competitively- 'Only Game in Town'. Exactly what large Corps do now- with the added infringement of the Stock (Stacked) market.
They fought for this because when humans controlled the exchange of goods and services instead of Brick and mortar (Family Crest or Logo)- the Humanity aspected remained in tacked.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I would say that a good realization of capitalism (e.g., USA c1960) is better than a bad realization of socialism (e.g., Soviet Union c1960). On the other hand, a bad realization of capitalism (e.g., USA c2005) is worse than a good realization of socialism (e.g., Denmark c2005).

The tendency to over-simplify, together with the corruption of the socialist model by the Soviet Union has allowed our domestic demagogues to keep us from even considering what could be good improvements to our own economic system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...they had broken down the poll respondants into income. I think you would find that the lower income people tended to think socialism was the better system while the upper income respondants would favor capitalism. It would then reflect the self interest factor.

As the working class takes it on the chin and grows more desperate they will naturally drift towards a viewpoint that favors a better deal for them. We know when we're getting reamed.
This is a fact the wealthy better get their heads around. The more they take advantage of the working class the more they risk having the system change to one where they can no longer profit themselves. Support the infrastructure or it will crumble away from beneath you.

History is full of examples of countries turning to socialism after an especially abusive period of capitalistic excess.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

.
For millions of years, Humans (minds) developed by SHARING their accumulating efforts, talents and wisdom in their various villages... and NOT by SELLING THEM.

Capitalism trades Truth and Human Development for Profit and market share.

When Lies and Guns decide who survives, then even our biological evolution is reversed.
.
http://www.themiracleoflife.org/Good_Times/

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't want your revolution. I want anarchy and peace.

www.greenanarchy.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If it says "free" it must be good. So, even though I haven't a clue that the concept means, I'm gonna vote for "free market."

With apologies to Alexander Pope, Some judge of systems' names, not meanings, and then nor praise nor blame the meanings, but the names.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I mean that literally. If a particular system regardless of what we call it, works for people,they like it. Problem for us is 8 years of effort by our president to create great class disparity. It worked. Our frame of reference is distorted. What almost everyone wants is fairness and the good old American opportunistic existence that we've lost. It doesn't need a name that automatically brings with it a "history" and therefore an assumed outcome. Many of the problems we face are not new, simply re-packaged for the 21st century and the times in which we live. Socailism of a kind is the natural remedy for capitalism gone crazy. That doesn't mean a giant step toward Marxism. It means leveling the playing field, which is not what Marx had it mind. When the country should have been living in fear of a dictator, it hardly ever came up. Now there's a glimmer of light for the middle class and the handwringing has begun. Who's really afraid here? Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Socialism or Capitalism? Communism or Capitalism? This is a lot like our 'two sided story' in politics. Is it really just a two sided story?

Do we really have to only go for one of the choices that has already been done? Where's the imagination?

I mean - isn't there any other way to run an economy than for us all to put each other up for sale in 'markets'? Is that really the best it can get? Is this really what we're going to raise our kids for, forever? To parade them across a stage like Roman slaves? Prepare them to enter 'markets' like chickens at a bodega?

It's true, there isn't a whole lot of work done re-imagining the ways we interact with each other - but is that really the final answer? This or that? Repub or Dem? Soc or Cap? Gumby or Pokey?

I really have seen more subversive work done, in commercials, than this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"We the PEOPLE", "...Liberty and justice for ALL", "The GENERAL WELFARE" and on and on...
All concepts adopted by a nation founded on freedom, liberty and EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY among ALL men.
Closely regulated capitalism is my choice. The economic model which we have allowed to develop over the past 50 years or so is hardly the "CAPITALISM" our founders had in mind.
"LOBBYISM" seems to be a more appropriate term for a government spawned of greed, coprruption and arrogance. So long as "good-old-boy" lobbying is tolerated as a legitimate practice in politics and government, capitalism will NEVER BE REGULATED TO BENEFIT ALL. The result? A social system of Aristocracy / fuedalism and finally, a cleverly planned, up-dated version of the slave system Lincoln worked so hard to abolish 150 years ago.
"SOCIALISM"? Only the ultra-wealthy have a lot to loose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's so sad how many Americans are uneducated, especially during these times.

If you are old enough to vote or poll, you should know what you are advocating. I don't know how many people I've spoke with that voted for BO and didn't have a clue what he was about; unfortunately they do now!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered [Sometimes quoted “occupied”]." Thomas Jefferson

For over a hundred years a battle raged over who was to rule, the bankers or the people. Until 1913, bank charters usually had to be renewed every ten or twenty years. This brought the activities of the bankers into the eyes of Congress and the people. In 1913 that was swept aside and the banks were given control of our monetary system in virtual perpetuity. Since then we've seen the growth of the giant corporations as Jefferson predicted and we the people have been reduced to serfdom, bound to the national debt just as securely as the medieval serf was bound to the land.

To me, capitalism is simply a system controlled by the capitalists. It is not free enterprise. It can't be as long as the capitalists are free to manipulate the money supply to their advantage.

Communism, socialism, and fascism? Theory aside, I believe that the reality of those systems is that all represent the ultimate capitalist monopoly in which the state owns or controls everything and the capitalists own or control the state. This, and only this, can explain the otherwise inexplicable financing of socialist, communist, and fascist institutions and propaganda mills by the super rich and their funds and foundations.

The Bolshevik Revolution was financed largely by Western capital. In the earty 1930's, Brown Brothers Harriman went to Russia to build its heavy industry, probably to prepare it for WWII. At the same time, another branch of the firm with Prescott Bush financed the building of the Wehrmacht to prepare Germany. The financing continued with the building of the Zil truck plant as a “peace gesture” by Ford, the Kama River truck plant by a consortium of bankers and industrialists led by Harriman, and the recent building of a plant in Russia by GM to make GM cars for the European market. Doesn't that give you a warm, fuzzy feeling when you think of the bailouts?

You can find some support for my contentions in my blogs:

http://phreedomphan-lostliberty.blogspot.com
http://phreedomphan-americasenemies.blogspot.com

The relevent info is in the 2008 archives. You'll have to do some thinking as well as reading. If that gives anyone a headache, they better skip it.

Rick

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The debate between capitalism and socialism is truly a red herring, as if pure capitalism exists at all! It doesn't. All capitalist societies are mixed economies - some do it better than others.

The knee-jerk reaction against socialism is predicated on right-wing ideology that defines socialism as "facsist" and capitalism as "freedom". Such simplification makes discussion impossible, let alone problem-solving.

We have a mixed economy now - it's just skewed toward the most well off amongst us while throwing meatless bones to the least of us (the very poor and working poor) and pretty much financed by the "middle-class" taxpayer.

How 'bout we make a few changes in our mixed capitalist/socialist economy starting with allowing large institutions, like banks, to fail when they lose the risk game. That's what the rest of us have to do - take it on the nose.

Then, maybe we should alter our tax structure to make it truly progressive. Those that benefit the most from the economic structure should accept contributing to the social welfare in kind.

Low wages with no health insurance = higher management salaries/bonuses + higher profits and dividends to shareholders. And when that system of greed collapses under it's own corruption? We bail them out? That is socialism for the rich!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Have you not yet noticed that illegal canadian immigrants are not swimming over the St. Lawrence River in droves in a desperate grab for the American Dream?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that asks people if they prefer that their decisions be made for them by government officials they cannot hold accountable between elections, or if they prefer to make their own decisions by voting directly on budgets and laws the way U.S. citizens still do in the New England States that have Town Hall Meetings in the old American continuing tradition of direct, participatory democracy?

Think about it. If we had been able to vote directly on the bailouts, which more than 90% of us opposed at the time (before the spin doctors got to twist everything around), we wouldn't be having bailouts. Instead, we got to vote for one of only two Presidential candidates with any chance of winning the "election," who BOTH favored bailouts.

And more than 50% of eligible voters, knowing that neither candidate represented their interests, voted anyway. Now they're complaining that their interests aren't being represented. Boo hoo.

Look, if you had worked hard and saved up your money to buy a car, which would you prefer, to decide for yourself which car to buy, or to vote for whether Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin can take your money and make that decision for you? What makes them better qualified to decide which car you should drive than you are?

Worse, how many people even realize that our Constitution still doesn't allow us to vote directly for President or Vice-President, and that only the Electoral College can do that? That when you cast a vote for any Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate on the ballot, you are actually voting for the slate of electors of their political party, whose names are NOT on the ballot? In any other area of business, that would be called fraud.

And is there anyone left in this country after the 2000 election who isn't aware that if the wealthy elite don't like who the public votes for, they can have their appointed, unelected, totally unaccountable, not subject to appeal, and therefore incompatible with any democratic system of government, Supreme Court install somebody else instead?

The question shouldn't be capitalism or socialism, the question should be democracy or tyranny. Democracy is when the supreme power of government is vested in the people and they can exercise it either directly or through representatives they can directly hold accountable by directly removing them at any time they fail to serve the public will. Tyranny is when people are ruled by a powerful elite they cannot directly hold accountable. Ask people which they prefer, which one we have, and why they vote for people they cannot hold accountable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

is that:
"violence *works*"
"America is NUMBER ONE!"
"everybody is inferior to a culture that worships a single document"
"its all about MEEEE!"
"there are no vices, only sins"

education?

puhLEEZE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How can anyone be in doubt when we've just gone through 8 years of unregulated capitalism with the result that the whole nation is on its ass?

IdiotBush did the whole world a favor by illustrating, beyond a doubt, the hypocrisy of capitalism and its appeal to the baser instincts of mankind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am a socialist and considers that the UK's general population was most secure pre-Thatcher (coincidentally pre-Reagan) when we had a mixed economy: the state controlled the public utilities, railways etc. and the private sector did the rest. But nowadays, when we talk about capitalism we forget to differentiate the capitalism of the past from the globalised version we have now. Recent events have clearly shown the inbuilt weaknesses of globalisation, in that no country can insulate itself against the mistakes of the most powerful players as collapse in one country has a domino effect globally. Globalised capitalism tends to leave most individual states powerless to do anything but ameliorate the malevolent effects of decisions made by global players who owe allegiance to no state and no people other than their investors. Unfortunately, to many states have decided that they can't be bothered to do even that. Multinational companies geared to the casino practices of the stock markets do not care about the long-term, consider the environmental damage they do or cause to be done to be someone else's problem, shift round the world looking for the cheapest labour costs, and think ethics are old fashioned and for idiots.

I am not suggesting we can wind back the clock (much as I might want to), but it is time to have international regulation to match international economic systems. It is time to reward those who actually produce something useful rather than those who make money by dubious sleight of hand without contributing anything tangible to the real world. States are supposed to serve the interests of their citizens, so it is time that we demanded that they did so, instead of pandering to the whims and greed of the transnational giants.

So far, neither the US or the UK seem prepared to do more than pay protection money to those who have bought the world to its economic knees. Instead of saying that now is the time to look for new answers, they are seeking to return things to the way they were before the crash, albeit with a bit of tinkering around the edges. Apart from anything else, I feel bitter that so much ordinary taxpayers' money is being given to those who have for so long done their best to avoid paying taxes to anyone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can't help but wonder if this isn't yet another "unintended consequence" for the poor old neocons. Consider: every practical, sensible, or equable political and economic step being taken these days is loudly branded "socialism" by their Noise Machine.

For people who were born after the McCarthy era, why wouldn't they feel positively about socialism? That's the name the Noise Machine is giving to fairness, common sense, and pragmatism!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Government leaders will always become Tyrants if you give them the power. No one
has perfected morality. That is supposed to be what our government is about,
making a "More Perfect Union" by throttling the power of any one person or
branch of government so they may not become tyrannical.

This can only come about through a hybrid version of Democratic Socialism. Our
Constitution well prescribes how to do this. However they forgot one crucial
part. They understood the greed for power but they did not completely comprehend
the power of money and its ability to corrupt the system. This thru the whole
equation out of whack which caused our system to morph into a form of corporate
industrial military fascism which is what we have today.

Forget every thing you think you know about Socialism. The corporate powers have
been deceiving us on this definition every way they can because they know it
will take their power away.

We are all either Socialist or anarchist. It matters not how else you brand
yourself. Socialism is government doing what government is supposed to do. That
is to create the infrastructure for social order so every one can find happiness
and fulfillment in life. If God created Humans for a purpose, that is it?

Capitalism is not a legitimate form of government is only a means for exchange
of goods and services. When a government allows it to be abused as we have in
the U.S. it becomes a path to dictatorial enslavement.

Communism is not a form of government it again is a means for exchange of goods
and services. Again when government allows it to be abused as it was in the USSR
it also becomes a path to dictatorial enslavement.

Neither one are theoretically bad as long as there is true Democratic Socialism
to keep them in check. In fact the most successful form of government will
include the best of both systems. They both have some advantages that work very
well together.

Libertarianism is anarchy, the enemy of government and the enemy of a
sustainable future. A true free market system will quickly consume itself and
what few precious resources we have left.

Liberalism and conservatism are just labels that have lost any real meaning.

We are going to have a revolution. It will be a revolution of reason. It will be
peaceful.
It will bring peace on earth and goodwill to men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Socialism is better for the economic security of the common man. Socialism is better for everyone period! Doctors, artists, plumbers educators engineers...

Capitalism is better for individual rights and liberties. Wrong, under socialism we do not have to prop up an opppressive social system that oppresses gay, lesbian relations, does not depend on the family to reproduce the next generations of workers, divorce and the disolution of marriage is easier, women have greater rights because we don't need them to perform all the duties that the capitalists get done for free in an oppressive monogomous marriage-it is also repressive for the man who has to take responsibility for the well being of the family unit. Also, how can one individualize and become themselves and develop under capitalism when your entire existence is struggling to exist.

Socialism is better for the masses.-the masses, how about socialism is better for you and your next door neighbour.

Capitalism is better for the individual.-no it isnt', just look at the health statistics of any nation with a social safety net. And you cannot develop all of your many sided talents under capitalism-this capitalism is better for the individual is ideology or put forward by those who don't really understand socialism.

Socialism is better for the losers.-the lossers in capitalism are pretty well pre-determined-upward mobility is pretty well a myth in capitalist socieities.

Capitalism is better for the winners.Even the winners suffer-they have to constantly compete die of heart attacks, get married 5 tiems have kids who see no meaning in life and die of drug overdoses-companies get swallowed up...no it is hard on the winners too! If you can call them that.

Socialism is better for the disadvantaged. There are no more disadvantaged under advanced socialism-capitalism is based on exploitation and deliberately holds whole nations and peoples down.

Capitalism is better for the advantaged. Yes in a limited fashion-free to make more money or perish-this is the same argument as above

Socialism is better for providing needs-true

Capitalism is better for arts and culture.not really, once people's needs are met they are free to develop those other inate talents that we all possess. Entertainment and art has become a commodity and most of what comes out of the major arts centres-disney and hollywood are pure crap.

Socialism promotes unity.

Capitalism promotes individuality. as above-

Capitalism encourages the gift of charity from those who are able. he hands you a nickle he hands you a dime then he has the nerve to ask you if your having a good time-really giving you back your own money-usually to a cause they have shares in? No need for charity under socialism

Socialism mandates charity, and doesn't call it a gift. no need for charity when distribution is carried on in a just fashion.

Socialism is better for providing basic health care to all.

Capitalism is better for providing advanced health care to those who can afford it.

Choose your economic system, but choose wisely.


Know your song well before you start singin...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"I Hope we Shall Crush in its Birth the Aristocracy of our Moneyed Corporations, which Dare already to Challenge our Government to a Trial of Strength and Bid Defiance to the Laws of Our Country..."

--Thomas Jefferson
3rd President
United States of America

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gallup did a similar study that showed some of the same things - some differences though:

When asked questions about the state of the economic system, responders tended to be Jingoist - they freaked when they hear words like "capitalism" or "socialism", in predictable ways. But when the interviewer would get into the basics, like "do you think money is distributed fairly? Do the rich keep getting richer? Is the system working? What should be done about the poor?" ;

the responses were pretty wild. They didn't ask "do you want the State running corporations" mind you - but on questions like the ones in the paragraph above, even after saying profoundly 'patriotic' and 'correct' things about capitalism, the public overwhelmingly said "No, it isn't working, the rich just get richer and the poor just get poorer." "It's all very unfair". And, shockingly, a big majority of people wanted the GOVERNMENT to take care of the poor! In two separate questions, the public said that they thought there should be HELP for the poor... and that GOVERNMENT should be doing it. In other words... most of this country - MOST - is well to the left of BOTH our so-called representative parties.

It also showed what the author highlights - people don't know the meanings of these words.

That, though, is not an indictment of the people. We could go off on "everyone is stupid" again, for the 2,897,439th time - or we could study the model followed by the US in most of its aggression in the world. The first thing to go, when the US intends to dominate a peasant population, is media control. The first thing we do is take away education. Then we present the people, at their next "free" election, with two choices for 'representation' with which we are comfortable.

This is the model - the USA is just the perfection of it. People aren't stupid because they lack brains; we all have the same equipment to start out. People are ignorant because the massive public fund is used against them.

So the combination of these two polling data would show that 1) the people are distrustful and sick of their government, and want it out of their personal and professional lives, and 2) when it comes to fairness, and the use of the public fund, they want justice and equality, and provision for all. Yes, they have been beaten up enough that they are punchy and don't know which end is up - but if you can get to how they really feel, without bringing up the American Flag or The American Way, you get a populace that is completely ignored, and a democracy that is completely defunct. And in the Gallup polls, we're talking numbers that are higher in favor of sharing than what Rasmussen reports - and we're also talking love for the word "capitalism" that is higher than Rasmussen reports.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Capitalism US style, where the profits are privatised and the losses are socialised is a disaster — why wouldn’t it be, the US defaulted on its debts in 1933 and is in effect an undischarged bankrupt.

The ‘capitalism’ that the US forced upon those countries unfortunate enough to fall into the claws of the IMF was never intended to help those countries, but to open them to predators, principally US predators, so that they could rip the guts out of these countries to the benefit of the US, and/or the ‘developed world’.

What is desperately needed is a new financial system which forgives all debt of the developing and under developed countries, and enables local economies to develop so that not only countries, but very localised areas can become largely self sufficient. This is going to be essential as ever more violent weather patterns disrupt distribution systems and leave an increasing number of areas isolated for ever increasing lengths of time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Someone needed to check the spelling here:
"Looking at other data as well, I think that there's widespread disilussionment with the American model of capitalism,"

Unless a new way of spelling "disillusionment" has been invented.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Judging by the comments above and the piece, and the CA Board of Education (recently gutted by Ahnold, whose kid goes to a posh west-side private school) who doesn't even teach socialism in their standards-based craptastic "economics" courses.... I'd say most 'Merkaans are too butt-fuck stoopid to know the difference anyway.

Quote from a CA textbook on Socialism "A totalitarian system defeated by Ronald Reagan in the 1990s." Wow. And that is the "standard" all Californian kids have to know to pass the NCLB imposed tests.

With brilliant standards like that, who needs an education? This is the world the owning class has brought us, people. Time for openin up some whoopass.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"America, is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within." ... Joseph Stalin

Dose of reality has a point. BIG GOVERNMENT (socialist) NEVER equals BETTER life for any constituent, NEVER equals BETTER healthcare for any constituent. Big government means GOVERNMENT ACQUIRES the rights to destroy YOUR life because YOU weren't looking or listening to what was going on.

To the present it's only one of the 1 % group of people attempting to destroy our Nation's economic systems.

WHY??? It was said to a WASH DC VIP---that the reason the Socialists think they will win this time and are doing this is because ACLU and their DEMS SLUGS -- they don't think American's are " smart enough" to care to let their fingers do the walking to protect their lands, their CONSTITUTION or their freedoms. The DEMS and ACLU don't think the 99% of American's will be 'smart enough" to CARE about their country, their homes, their small business enough to kick the WASH DC SLUGS out and send them packing by way of Balagovich for NOT doing what is right to protect PUBLIC freedoms and the free enterprise system (ie meaning small business/med business) and rights.

Therefore, they want to make sure they take all freedoms away from the public and they want to make it impossible for FREE ENTERPRISE to exist for the small business and mid business and sole proprietorship thru gravytraining BIG BUSINESS bankrupting our Nation and MUSCLING OUT the small/med sole proprietorships, and creating a welfare state. A move straight out of the marxist handbook. and by attempting to eradicate free speech.

Then, we will be SOCIALIST/GLOBALIST/MARX/FACIST/COMM COUNTRY and the marketplace will be MONOPOLIZED AND DOMINATED by the ENGORGED 1 or 2 or several big businesses in sector. Gone will be the hope for any American whom would wish to start a business and earn profit to live on

Seek legislative and LEGAL agencies to DISMANTLE the bailout and kick out the SOCIALIST stimulus.

SEE --CIVI COUNCIL THOMAS CROMWELL also Amer Ctr for Law and Justice and The National Center for public policy research

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DO you want to know what the ACLU thinks about how 'STUPID' they view Americans. Here is what Norman THOMAS one of the Founders of the ACLU says QUOTE Americans will never "knowingly" accept Socialism, but under "liberalism" Americans will accept every fragment; and one day wake up in a Socialist Nation and "wonder" how it all happened.

What we need to investigate is how the DEMOCRATS and ACLU think that they can continue to count on Americans being as stupid as the ACLU thinks Americans are. So they can further their Soc/glob/marx/fac/comm agenda.



Here we have the DEMS always needing a bigger shovel for the level of UTOPIAN propaganda they want to throw at the UNSUSPECTING PUBLIC

the latest??? FILMAKER MICHALE MOORE even made a propaganda 'feature film' claiming that Cuba's socialized healthcare is better than America's and that USA should imitate Cuba.

WHAT THEY ARE HIDING?? THE REALITY IN CUBA---they are FORCED to BEG tourists for common medicines like allergy and asthma inhalers and even aspirin.

PUBLIC needs to get LEGAL ACTION against that SOCIALIST HEALTHCARE PEOPLE.

under the new SOC HEALTHCARE-----if YOU/YOUR CHILD NEEDS ANTIBIOTICS and the GOV only wants to give them Aspirin or NOTHING guess whaaat?? YOU GET EITHER ASPIRIN OR NOTHING. and for whaat so WASH DC SLUGS can live on their wanton pork.

WASH DC is lying to claim HEALTCARE cannot be fixed WITHOUT socialization. go see for yourselves.

I THINK ravel from wikipedia said it best:

The democracies that will surely perish will be those who cannot tell the difference between good and evil, survival and ruin, freedom and tyranny. Or, perhaps more to the point, the greatest danger faced by democracy are those who deny that there is any real difference after all.


see The National Center for Public Policy Research and American Center for LAW and JUSTICE---right away

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Even with the faults of the poll and widespread ignorance of economic alternatives, socialism, whatever it's understood to be, is being given remarkably high marks by the public. The Cold War is over.

Think of it, you seekers of dark linings. Think what bad news this is to the Republicans. Not only does "liberal" no longer work as a scare word, but apparently "socialist" doesn't work either.

This can only send them further into the fever swamps in search of the magic word that will tar progressives. Marxist? Fascist? Satanist?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BRILLIANT LATE IDEA

A Tax Day 2009 radio caller to Moon Griffron about 10:15am CST…
“There are 40 million senior citizens in the country….
give each a million dollars BUT they must buy a new car and a house”…
(I would add … or a house for a family member or payoff same)

Can you imagine the economic chain reaction for that pittance of your tax money compared to the hundreds of billions just borrowed?
Call it “an earmark for the people”.
Moon said “the plan was great but too simple for congress”.
Therein is the problem, that same ole problem…
the vote-buying dufus no-new-ideas congress.

http://conservablogs.com/theconservativecrawfish

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

“People are tired of wasteful government programs and welfare chiselers, and they’re angry about the constant spiral of taxes and government regulations, arrogant bureaucrats, and public officials who think all of mankind’s problems can be solved by throwing the taxpayers’ dollars at them.”

++ “Government can’t tax things like businesses or corporations, it can only tax people. When it says it’s going to ‘make business pay,’ it is really saying it is going to make business help it collect taxes.”

++ “We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.”

++ “Our tax policy is engineered by people who view tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure.”

++ “Raising taxes will slow economic growth, reduce production, and destroy future jobs, making it more difficult for those without jobs to find them and more likely that those who now have jobs could lose them.”

++ “My friends, history is clear: Lower tax rates mean greater freedom, and whenever we lower the tax rates, our entire nation is better off.” –Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)

=====

Keep in mind the dufus vote-buying 2009 democrat-controlled congress just borrowed a trillion on your VISA and is soon to pass a budget that triples the nation’s debt…so you know what that means for your paycheck.

http://conservablogs.com/theconservativecrawfish/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ROCKHEAD OBAMA WILL IGNORE PUTIN

PREACHING TO THE DEAF-MUTE

3.1.09…At the recent World Economic Forum, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned of our government’s flirtations with socialism, that is, a state-run economy.

Trying not to “gloat,” Putin told the U.S. that “Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence” is a “mistake.” He reminded listeners that state control of the old Soviet economy made the nation “totally uncompetitive.”

CRAWFISH NOTE: The day when Russia actually warns us how bad socialism was…wow…bummer.
Russia has taught Obama nothing. Cuba has taught Obama nothing. Obama is a trained secular socialist surrounded by same. He is a true believer in secular socialism. Heck, Jimmah Carter has taught Obama (and Reid-Pelosi) nothing. Stupid is…as stupid does…but its us that have to suffer for this arrogant ignorance of economic reality. Suckers.

http://conservablogs.com/theconservativecrawfish

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]