Between two failed systems.

[Never wrong People]

Under any system resources will run out at some time.

True, but we can try to slow it down.

In the end though, we are fucked if we remain limitted to a single planet.

It is in the best intest of industry to give workers a good wage because then they can become consumers and cause more wealth to be created.

In theory, perhaps. But if a company can increase its profits by screwing over its workers, do you think most companies will hesitate to do so? Why do you think third world sweat shops are so popular?

Slow the using up of resources to what level?

Companies do not see that they are actually hurting themselves in the long run.
A company that did not screw over it workers at one point was the Pullman Sleeper-car Company back in the 1800s. Mr. Ford gave good wages to his early workers because he knew they would be more loyal and hardworking, plus buy the product they made. SAS, today gives workers huge benefits.
Check out the idea of welfare capitalism - a system design to improve worker well-being and morale.
Some workers in third world sweat shops are happy just to have a job paying something than straving to death doing nothing.

[The Romulan Republic]

Slow the using up of resources to what level?

As much as possible without compromising decent living standards, or enough to remain sustainable until our technology improves and our resource base is more than one planet.

Companies do not see that they are actually hurting themselves in the long run.
A company that did not screw over it workers at one point was the Pullman Sleeper-car Company back in the 1800s. Mr. Ford gave good wages to his early workers because he knew they would be more loyal and hardworking, plus buy the product they made. SAS, today gives workers huge benefits.
Check out the idea of welfare capitalism - a system design to improve worker well-being and morale.

If only more companies worked that way, I might be convinced. Then again, its true that every system has its flaws.

Some workers in third world sweat shops are happy just to have a job paying something than straving to death doing nothing.

Let me provide some example that should hopefully demonstrate what is so sickening about that kind of thinking.

"Some slaves are happy to be laboring in the feilds all day, instead of being beaten to death."

"Some medical malpractice victims are happy to be just paralysed instead of dead."

"Some wrongfully convicted prisoners are happy to be imprisoned for life instead of executed."

Leaving aside the fact that you have evidently not found a way to accurately measure how happy these workers are with their current state of affairs, you cannot justify an injustice or mitigate a tragedy simply by saying their are other, worse injustices and tragedies. If you want to convince me that sweat shops are ok, convince me that we can't do better.

[Pevisopolis]

Give me a break. Two failed systems? Capitalism has not failed. If you MUST know (you should have the ballpark down by my first 3 sentences) I voted for pure libertarianism, no gov't intervention.

Really, It hasn't failed YET. It's getting there, though.

I think Socialism hasn't necessarily failed, but Stalinism and Soviet-style authoritarian "Communism" (as opposed to Marxism) have failed rather Dramatically.

Look at Hong Kong. The closest we have to capitalism on earth. Closer than the US. Very successful. With a lot less regulation than the US. Socialism on the other hand has failed in all it's forms. Marxism, Stalinism, Leninism, whateverthefuckyouwannacallthefailedsystemism have all failed.

Ah yes, Hong Kong, in all its glory, with the same level of Exploitation of the Working Class as capitalist factories in the Rest of China.

Which reminds me... China is the one "Communist" state revolutionaries should try NOT to achieve. China was only remotely communist for a short while (and even then being rather authoritarian, under Mao Tse Tung.), and now, they're an absolutely Capitalist nation ruled over by the Communist party.

[Political Spectrum]

[/quote]
Ah yes, Hong Kong, in all its glory, with the same level of Exploitation of the Working Class as capitalist factories in the Rest of China.

Which reminds me... China is the one "Communist" state revolutionaries should try NOT to achieve. China was only remotely communist for a short while (and even then being rather authoritarian, under Mao Tse Tung.), and now, they're an absolutely Capitalist nation ruled over by the Communist party.[/quote]

I am not referring to China, I am referring to Hong Kong. The two systems there are very different.

And what exploitation of the working class in Hong Kong are you talking about?

[Milks Empire]

My idea doesn't fit any of the listed options, and a poll to list every possible combo wouldn't be practical. Here it is:

Economic policy: Scandinavian-style, where pretty much everyone is guaranteed a minimum standard of living and regulated markets are used for most things. Universal health coverage.

Social policy: Mostly libertarian with some regulation of the more hazardous pursuits.

Political policy: Political parties discouraged but not outlawed. Free airtime to all candidates. No reelection to any post whatsoever. Independent judiciary with judges' terms of at most 15 years.

[Kirby J]

I voted flawed. Because what I think is the centre, and what you think is the centre are two very different places. You can't define this question in terms of a one dimensional, two dimensional or even three dimensional continuum. It's just too complex. Nothing will work for everyone, or even most people. For example, "freedom" and "justice" are completely incompatible in their complete senses. If everyone is free, someone will do something which is not just. So there exists compromise. Compromise in all things, even in some things, means that nothing is entirely satisfying. So there's no system that will work entirely until you find a small group of people who are entirely like minded, that is to say they share the same brain, and put them on an island by themselves away from everyone else. The best advice I have is get over it, and live your life.

[NmyJJGvf]

Companies do not see that they are actually hurting themselves in the long run.

then they get hurt in the long run. they don't get bailed out, and others (hopefully) learn from there mistakes.

..... plus buy the product they made.

I don't see how that benefit's the company. Unless you are giving the employee a $50/year raise and the employee buys $51/year more worth of products, I don't see how that benefits the company at all, at least not directly.

Some workers in third world sweat shops are happy just to have a job paying something than straving to death doing nothing.

unsupported claim.

I think Socialism hasn't necessarily failed, but Stalinism and Soviet-style authoritarian "Communism" (as opposed to Marxism) have failed rather Dramatically.

if you want to pull out the "well that wasn't really socialist.... " argument, whatever you're going to point at as capitalism failing, wasn't really capitalist. Neither argument, no matter how correct, really goes anywhere.

Really, Power is maintained by those who have the most money.

power flows from the barrel of a gun. Like him or not, Mao was right about at least that one thing. The power to live your own life free from the violent intervention of others, or the power to coerce and control others ultimately both stem from the same source.

[Pevisopolis]

I am not referring to China, I am referring to Hong Kong. The two systems there are very different.

And what exploitation of the working class in Hong Kong are you talking about?

Hong Kong is a part of the People's republic of China, and I'm talking about the very same factories and production centers that many other Chinese cities have.

[Pevisopolis]

I think Socialism hasn't necessarily failed, but Stalinism and Soviet-style authoritarian "Communism" (as opposed to Marxism) have failed rather Dramatically.

if you want to pull out the "well that wasn't really socialist.... " argument, whatever you're going to point at as capitalism failing, wasn't really capitalist. Neither argument, no matter how correct, really goes anywhere.

Socialist Parties in many countries are making a comeback, i.e., Trotskyists and Anarchists in Greece, Massive Strikes in France, etc. And the USSR did have many socialist aspects to it, but really, it was more, at any given time, anywhere between "Corrupt Dictatorship" and a Prolonged Transitional Stage.

[Dolbri]

Look at Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is just one city, embedded in a huge world. On such a level, capitalism can work. But if you try to introduce the totally-free market in the entire world, you will inevitably get situations like Africa, and you will inevitably destroy the environment and use up all your resources.

That's the clue in the end: without a central authority regulating things, everyone looks only at their own life, and their own immediate future, and such systems tend to leave most people less happy than they could be, and it leaves the world a wasteland in the long run. If you have government intervention, be it socialism-inspired or other, at least you can try to do something about such big problems.

[The Romulan Republic]

That's why Lenin and Stalin ran a place know as the USSR? Better knows as the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics?

Communism is extreme socialism. The two are not simply synonymous.

And in Marxist theory, socialism was a transition economy, from capitalist, to communist.

Yet there are plenty of states that implement "socialist" policies that are by no means Communist. Or are you going to tell me that Canada and most of western Europe are Communist states? There are degrees of socialism, you know. Well, maybe not if you get all your news in the form of GOP talking points.

[NmyJJGvf]

That's why Lenin and Stalin ran a place know as the USSR? Better knows as the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics?

Communism is extreme socialism. The two are not simply synonymous.

If communism is an extreme of socialism, communism is a subset of socialist. Ergo, if it is communist it is necessarily socialist, though if it's socialist it's not necessarily communist.

as far as the USSR being communist, then the USA is a free nation.

And in Marxist theory, socialism was a transition economy, from capitalist, to communist.

Yet there are plenty of states that implement "socialist" policies that are by no means Communist. Or are you going to tell me that Canada and most of western Europe are Communist states? There are degrees of socialism, you know. Well, maybe not if you get all your news in the form of GOP talking points.

I'm not going to say that Marx is the best source for defining socialism or communism, however if socialism is to be considered a transition economy it wouldn't be necessary for Canada or Europe to already be communist to be transitioning to it.

Hong Kong is just one city, embedded in a huge world.

Switzerland is also considered highly capitalistic. It's interesting to see that they also have one of the most stable economies in the world.

On such a level, capitalism can work. But if you try to introduce the totally-free market in the entire world, you will inevitably get situations like Africa

hm? I thought Africa was more the product of European imperialism.

and you will inevitably destroy the environment and use up all your resources.

only if people in general are not aware of the scarcity of those resources.

That's the clue in the end: without a central authority regulating things, everyone looks only at their own life....

and somehow those government authorities are not looking out only for themselves.

.... and their own immediate future, and such systems tend to leave most people less happy than they could be

if people end up unhappy due to there own short sightedness, it's there own damn fault.

and it leaves the world a wasteland in the long run.

any system, not aware of it's constraints, will do the same thing.

If you have government intervention, be it socialism-inspired or other, at least you can try to do something about such big problems.

the proper place for socialism is in society, not government.

[NmyJJGvf]

I think Socialism hasn't necessarily failed, but Stalinism and Soviet-style authoritarian "Communism" (as opposed to Marxism) have failed rather Dramatically.

if you want to pull out the "well that wasn't really socialist.... " argument, whatever you're going to point at as capitalism failing, wasn't really capitalist. Neither argument, no matter how correct, really goes anywhere.

Socialist Parties in many countries are making a comeback, i.e., Trotskyists and Anarchists in Greece, Massive Strikes in France, etc. And the USSR did have many socialist aspects to it, but really, it was more, at any given time, anywhere between "Corrupt Dictatorship" and a Prolonged Transitional Stage.

hm? What massive strikes in France? Other then the rioting Arab youth, only massive strikes I know of happened in '68 (or was that '67, I can't remember) As far as Greece goes, they've had like... 4 or 5 revolutions/civil wars since WWII, and anarchist have had a hand in most of them. So that's not really new news. Repping the black and red, maybe you should check out Chiapas, Mexico... Information is generally scarce, but it might be interesting.

I am not referring to China, I am referring to Hong Kong. The two systems there are very different.

And what exploitation of the working class in Hong Kong are you talking about?

Hong Kong is a part of the People's republic of China, and I'm talking about the very same factories and production centers that many other Chinese cities have.

Hong Kong, is largely autonomous of mainland China.

[Maurepas]

I went with "Democratic Socialist, Moderate Socialist" cause I kinda like what France and the UK have going on, and Id say its closest to that...

[Vervaria]

I chose "Moderately Capitalist". Capitalism is good, but completely unrestricted goes out of control and often screws over the little guy.

[Hydrosteria]

Other-

Objectivist, why? It's your responsibility, your fault, your reward, and no government sucking the blood sweat and tears off of you.

And imagine I used to be a communist.... still, al ideaologies are Utopias provided they work.

[Yootopia]

Has to be centrist, chaps and chapettes. Anything else, and you have the general public suffering as the political class sacrifices monetary security or the welfare of the public to win votes. Which is just not right.

[Yootopia]

Other-

Objectivist, why? It's your responsibility, your fault, your reward, and no government sucking the blood sweat and tears off of you.

And imagine I used to be a communist.... still, al ideaologies are Utopias provided they work.

Extremist changes to other extreme shocker!

[Pevisopolis]

Has to be centrist, chaps and chapettes. Anything else, and you have the general public suffering as the political class sacrifices monetary security or the welfare of the public to win votes. Which is just not right.

The political class - or any social class, for that matter - is simply just not right.

[Yootopia]

The political class - or any social class, for that matter - is simply just not right.

Can't agree with you there, and this argument is going to get menstrutabulous in its cyclical nature. So eh let's just agree to disagree.

[Tratvia]

Democratic Socialism.

We need personal freedom and a free market, but life is much more civilized if there is a welfare state, a national health service, independent but regulated broadcasting, and some limits to how far the market red in tooth and claw can go.

[Dolbri]

menstrutabulous

That's... a remarkable word, to say the least.

[No Names Left Damn It]

Moderate capitalism.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The people should be able to live in a country who fully ratifies the Human Rights charter of the UN.

[The Romulan Republic]

If communism is an extreme of socialism, communism is a subset of socialist. Ergo, if it is communist it is necessarily socialist, though if it's socialist it's not necessarily communist.

Sure, but that makes it no more accurate to equate the two, since you can have moderate (and in my opinion, more effective) Socialism without Communism.

as far as the USSR being communist, then the USA is a free nation.

Perhaps. But it hardly speaks well of Communism that every large scale attempt at it has been comparably a failliur. Of course, you could say the same about democracy, at least in so far as we've never had a full and perfect democracy, so perhaps this point ultimately proves nothing.

I'm not going to say that Marx is the best source for defining socialism or communism, however if socialism is to be considered a transition economy it wouldn't be necessary for Canada or Europe to already be communist to be transitioning to it.

Perhaps they are, but if so they're taking their sweet time about it.