Capitalism, Communism, or Socialism?...

[Nevertopia]

what do you think the best answer is?

Regarding my choice principle? I'd rather not say and keep the discussion platform neutral, though I will say all theories have their merits and relatable points. And as an open minded centrist, I'm soaking it all in.

thats the best mindset tbh. Look at the best parts from each thing and see what works.

[Atheris]

Capitalism has failed in every country where it has been tried. Depressions, inequality, unrest, oppression.

Ah, yes. The failing capitalist countries of Japan, South Korea, the United States, Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Australia, and the successful socialist countries of the USSR and the rest of the Eastern Bloc, Cuba, the SFRY, Laos, Democratic Kampuchea, Albania (1946-1992), and Benin (1975-1989).

[Nuroblav]

Regarding my choice principle? I'd rather not say and keep the discussion platform neutral, though I will say all theories have their merits and relatable points. And as an open minded centrist, I'm soaking it all in.

I think that's a good mindset to have in politics (particularly these days ), although from your posts I think I have am idea of things.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

I voted capitalism, but am more in favor of a Bismarkian/Wilhelmine2 welfare state. Does that count as socialism?

[Shrillland]

None of the above. An entirely new economic system is needed, one that puts environmental stewardship over the need for profit or even for employment. Capitalism can't provide that because profit is the be all end all regardless of who or what gets hurt. Communism can't provide that because the nations that still implement some form of it still control state-run monopolies in fossil-burning industries, thus giving the state no incentive to sacrifice them due to the loss of revenues and employment. A new, third system that uses some basic fundamentals of both systems while ensuring that the environment and the future of the Earth is what guides humanity rather than short-term gains for private or public actors is what we need to survive.

[Dominioan]

None of the above. An entirely new economic system is needed, one that puts environmental stewardship over the need for profit or even for employment. Capitalism can't provide that because profit is the be all end all regardless of who or what gets hurt. Communism can't provide that because the nations that still implement some form of it still control state-run monopolies in fossil-burning industries, thus giving the state no incentive to sacrifice them due to the loss of revenues and employment. A new, third system that uses some basic fundamentals of both systems while ensuring that the environment and the future of the Earth is what guides humanity rather than short-term gains for private or public actors is what we need to survive.

If you make clean energy profitable, it will work in capitalism. If you happen to get socialists who care, then you can have green socialism.

[Anatoliyanskiy]

None of the above. An entirely new economic system is needed, one that puts environmental stewardship over the need for profit or even for employment. Capitalism can't provide that because profit is the be all end all regardless of who or what gets hurt. Communism can't provide that because the nations that still implement some form of it still control state-run monopolies in fossil-burning industries, thus giving the state no incentive to sacrifice them due to the loss of revenues and employment. A new, third system that uses some basic fundamentals of both systems while ensuring that the environment and the future of the Earth is what guides humanity rather than short-term gains for private or public actors is what we need to survive.

*cough cough* eco socialism *cough cough*

[Nejii]

NEW POLL

[-Ocelot-]

There is no perfect socio-economic platform. Mixed/Capitalist economies are the most efficient. So it makes sense to support these kinds of models. I'd say America needs to avoid regulatory capture and maintain a state that can actually impose regulations on corporations. Libertarianism wouldn't work for the US, or any country for that matter, in my opinion.

On the other hand, communism is probably the least efficient system. And therefore ideal to promote on nations one would want to destroy.

[Nuroblav]

NEW POLL

Nice. Gone with socialism for the poll - 'communism' is not something that really sums up my approach too well in exactness.

[Nejii]

There is no perfect socio-economic platform. Mixed/Capitalist economies are the most efficient. So it makes sense to support these kinds of models. I'd say America needs to avoid regulatory capture and maintain a state that can actually impose regulations on corporations. Libertarianism wouldn't work for the US, or any country for that matter, in my opinion.

On the other hand, communism is probably the least efficient system. And therefore ideal to promote on nations one would want to destroy.

The biggest turn off for me on capitalism is the corporate monopolies, predatory capitalism, and the kickbacks and snipping of red tape for shifty reasons.

[-Ocelot-]

There is no perfect socio-economic platform. Mixed/Capitalist economies are the most efficient. So it makes sense to support these kinds of models. I'd say America needs to avoid regulatory capture and maintain a state that can actually impose regulations on corporations. Libertarianism wouldn't work for the US, or any country for that matter, in my opinion.

On the other hand, communism is probably the least efficient system. And therefore ideal to promote on nations one would want to destroy.

The biggest turn off for me on capitalism is the corporate monopolies, predatory capitalism, and the kickbacks and snipping of red tape for shifty reasons.

Yeah that's a problem with capitalism and this is why mixed economies that can impose regulation are sometimes more efficient than just letting the private sector act by itself. Still, even this problem feels very small compared to the devastation centrally planned economies bring.

[Labbos]

Respectfully, give me an example or two.

Pretty much the entire eastern bloc for starters. East Germany in particular is a great example of the system working and working well.

Your best example is a country that had to build a wall to stop people escaping to a capitalist nation, and which folded and chose to become a part of its richer capitalist neighbour as soon as the people got a whiff of power?

[Travislavania]

Pretty much the entire eastern bloc for starters. East Germany in particular is a great example of the system working and working well.

Your best example is a country that had to build a wall to stop people escaping to a capitalist nation, and which folded and chose to become a part of its richer capitalist neighbour as soon as the people got a whiff of power?

yep, people dreamed of going to east germany

[UniversalCommons]

Green capitalism, Paul Hawken.

[Nilokeras]

There is no perfect socio-economic platform. Mixed/Capitalist economies are the most efficient.

Nothing says 'efficiency' like a system that pours 1.75 billion dollars into a streaming platform that fails within months of launching. And it's by far not the only one - recent history is littered with failed start ups that consume billions in capital, usually in quixotic attempts to create killer apps to capture monopolies or exploit regulatory loopholes. Healthy system, no problem here.

[VlaRiSsiA]

For the last time.

Communism =/= Command Economy

Statism = Command Economy

The classic, “Socialism is when the government does stuff. The more stuff the government does, the socialister it is.” -Carl Marks. Whoever thinks Karl Marx was the one who had the idea of a command economy is ignorant. But why does no one remember my boi Engels The idea of the state controlling everything has existed for thousands of years, though corrupt oligarchies and absolute monarchies.

That said, I personally prefer a form of libertarian socialism, as directly going to communism without any sort of transition would be a disaster.

[Tokora]

I'm personally a Religious-Communist but for the US the best and most feasible system would be Eco-Titoism where businesses are incentivized to follow eco-friendly policies while being self managed by the workers themselves. America is simply far too individualist for any model other than the Yugoslavian but since it has been tried and proven it's a good model to follow.

[Labbos]

There is no perfect socio-economic platform. Mixed/Capitalist economies are the most efficient.

Nothing says 'efficiency' like a system that pours 1.75 billion dollars into a streaming platform that fails within months of launching. And it's by far not the only one - recent history is littered with failed start ups that consume billions in capital, usually in quixotic attempts to create killer apps to capture monopolies or exploit regulatory loopholes. Healthy system, no problem here.

It's survival of the fittest, just like in nature. And in nature there are plenty of dead ends. Failing companies is part of how capitalism works.

[Dominioan]

For the last time.

Communism =/= Command Economy

Statism = Command Economy

The classic, “Socialism is when the government does stuff. The more stuff the government does, the socialister it is.” -Carl Marks. Whoever thinks Karl Marx was the one who had the idea of a command economy is ignorant. But why does no one remember my boi Engels The idea of the state controlling everything has existed for thousands of years, though corrupt oligarchies and absolute monarchies.

That said, I personally prefer a form of libertarian socialism, as directly going to communism without any sort of transition would be a disaster.

Just gonna say this, I always laugh when I see "Carl Marks".

[Nilokeras]

Nothing says 'efficiency' like a system that pours 1.75 billion dollars into a streaming platform that fails within months of launching. And it's by far not the only one - recent history is littered with failed start ups that consume billions in capital, usually in quixotic attempts to create killer apps to capture monopolies or exploit regulatory loopholes. Healthy system, no problem here.

It's survival of the fittest, just like in nature. And in nature there are plenty of dead ends. Failing companies is part of how capitalism works.

Which is, of course, the thing. Nature is not efficient. From a 10% energetic transfer between trophic levels to 99% offspring mortalities, nature is prodigiously wasteful. But nature at least is incremental - it does not waste colossal amounts of money on wild leaps and poor market research. Human markets do that because they are not Darwinian selection engines, they are social networks, where ideas are promoted not because of their inherit merit but because of their proponents' ability to schmooze. Jeffrey Katzenberg and his partners got Quibi - which is demonstrably a failure waiting to happen - off the ground because of who they were and who they knew. And now society pays the price, having 1.76 billion worth of productivity flushed down the drain.

[Rost Dreadnorramus]

Capitalism all the way.

[-Ocelot-]

There is no perfect socio-economic platform. Mixed/Capitalist economies are the most efficient.

Nothing says 'efficiency' like a system that pours 1.75 billion dollars into a streaming platform that fails within months of launching. And it's by far not the only one - recent history is littered with failed start ups that consume billions in capital, usually in quixotic attempts to create killer apps to capture monopolies or exploit regulatory loopholes. Healthy system, no problem here.

Capitalism is so strong and efficient that 1.75 billion dollars can be wasted on a failing streaming platform and nobody notices. You wouldn't know about it if it wasn't for that article. Imagine how much wealth we produce under this system to be able to do something like that!

People under communist regimes were and are regularly starving to death.

[Nejii]

Nothing says 'efficiency' like a system that pours 1.75 billion dollars into a streaming platform that fails within months of launching. And it's by far not the only one - recent history is littered with failed start ups that consume billions in capital, usually in quixotic attempts to create killer apps to capture monopolies or exploit regulatory loopholes. Healthy system, no problem here.

Capitalism is so strong and efficient that 1.75 billion dollars can be wasted on a failing streaming platform and nobody notices. You wouldn't know about it if it wasn't for that article. Imagine how much wealth we produce under this system to be able to do something like that!

People under communist regimes were and are regularly starving to death.

I have made criticisms against capitalism in this thread, however -Ocelot- made a point just now that I alluded toward amongst other critics of communism and socialism as well in the OP. A common argument amongst anti-communists and anti-socialists is in fact that the masses are impoverished in socialist and communist regimes. They also reference the decades of immigrants that fled to the west/the US to escape such systems.

To pro-communists and pro-socialists; what is your response/defense to this?

[Nolo gap]

none of the above ism is a real thing. no ideology, or economicology if you prefer, is a default condition of of the real universe.
the real universe being that which consists of rocks and trees and galaxies, and everything else that doesn't begin and end with what people tell each other to pretend.
symbolic value is a construct of the mind. one hundred percent recycling is the economic of nature.
and dare i say, the creating of artificial scarcity is not a public bennefit.
making everything have to be about money does not make the world a richer place but a poorer one.

nurture and consideration are the value of sapience, and the right kind of infrastructure, that which protects the diversity of the natural environment while serving all, regardless of social or economic status, is the entire point and bennifit of social organization.