Socialism vs. Capitalism

[Liberal-Finns]

Which economic structure seems more stable to you guys? A Socialist economy or a Capitalist economy? In my opinion, a Socialist economy seems more stable because it equally distributes the wealth throughout the nation's citizens, making everybody economically equal.

[ZoPPIStan]

Socioeconomically the most stable nations in Europe are:
Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland because they have a mix of around 70% private and 30 % state/public owned economy. Their Welfare-States are mostly based on universal principles, giving almost everybody equal opportunities. Factors like birth-rate, democratic-participation, public budgets, economic growth, wages, education and innovation are the best in Europe, as you can see at oecd.org.
Why are You pro Socialism as a Liberal?

[Liberal-Finns]

Why are You pro Socialism as a Liberal?

You make it sound so unusual, actually Socialists and Liberals are on the exact same side of the political spectrum.

[Marinetus]

I believe Soviet Socialism, or Communism, would be the best choice. I do not, however, want to get into a Capitalist Pig/Communist Dog argument, so I will now take my leave.

[Almajoya]

This is in the wrong forum. I'll request a move.

[Maurepas]

Socioeconomically the most stable nations in Europe are:
Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland because they have a mix of around 70% private and 30 % state/public owned economy. Their Welfare-States are mostly based on universal principles, giving almost everybody equal opportunities. Factors like birth-rate, democratic-participation, public budgets, economic growth, wages, education and innovation are the best in Europe, as you can see at oecd.org.
Why are You pro Socialism as a Liberal?

This^^^, prettymuch describes my economic stance perfectly...

[ZoPPIStan]

Yes, Maurepas. I am not alone...
And there is an other group which has at least enough children (As long socities do not manage actively their demographie to get ridd off polution (as long as societies do not manage their environmental problems seriously...)). the birth rate is essiental for societal unrest, adaption, economic growth, balance in social insurance schemes, and so on. These countries are UK, France, Irland, but also the Netherlands and Belgium with an above average fertility rate. The rest are the loosers: They rely on outmoded family and state model of the conservative style in central and south and on the orthodox/slavic/former communist in central and Eastern Europe. I do not know about the orthodox model, but i guess it is as bad as the catholic welfare state model (following Esping-Andersen and newer research in the field of Welfare States in Europe).

It is always a question of effictivity and flexibility, as well as complexity. The Fordist Model of the absolutistic communist states was outmoded already in the late 60s, so that they could spy a lot, but hardly implement the western products into production. So flexibility is more stable, but not too much. The typical market outcome of financial market dominated economies (share-holder) is bad. Look at the US or the british automotive industry. They are just using the money system for ruling, but not producing in real economy.
Generally Speaking: If the market outcomes (of today markets with public-private collusion practices)
are not solved by collective/public goods/or institutions taking the shadow of the common future into consideration in a democratic and open way through all the "functional systems" (Social Welfare, Education, Politics, Health Care, public finance, ecology, economy, defense, and so on) and their related main organizations and participants are not related to one another in an good institutional way (open, universal, allowing flexibility and effectivity f.e. in production), the society is not going to have the best future or performance. Normally the most subsystems or spheres are of one kind (see above), but history or path-dependence are also influental and combinations exists everywhere.

The individuals and the organisations and the kind of institutions are of course linking all the functional systems. It depends on a combination of diversity and unity between the functional systems seen as a whole, as well as inside and their actors to other functional systems, like in transnationalism.

Both sides, the former soviet states, but also the market fallacies in the Western world are too much on one extreme. If there are any chinese leaders at this forum, copy Scandinavian welfare systems but there is long road to sustainibilty then, too. If the problem of too weak democrazy and too strong capitalism is not solved, it is quite impossible to find a solution for most other problems.

But now it is Your turn to tell us, why socialist and liberal ideology are similar.

[The Parkus Empire]

Which economic structure seems more stable to you guys? A Socialist economy or a Capitalist economy? In my opinion, a Socialist economy seems more stable because it equally distributes the wealth throughout the nation's citizens, making everybody economically equal.

I tend to favor a meritocracy, myself.

[Conservative Alliances]

I like barely regulated capitalism.

[Central Slavia]

Definitely socialism
Decent life for everyone who is not stubborn or stupid

[Shwaasburg]

I like barely regulated capitalism.

This.

Greed may run rampant, (as per human nature.) but its a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.

[Gordonisia]

Which economic structure seems more stable to you guys? A Socialist economy or a Capitalist economy? In my opinion, a Socialist economy seems more stable because it equally distributes the wealth throughout the nation's citizens, making everybody economically equal.

people sure like their "socialism/communism vs. capitalism" threads.
Anywho, I lean towards a socialist education and healthcare system, but i am unsure when it comes to economics. Definitely not communism

[South Lorenya]

The stablest one has both socialist and capitalist parts; having one or the other unrestrained is a train wreck waiting to happen.

[Panzerjaeger]

The Real Question here is Trotsky or Stalin?

[Central Slavia]

The Real Question here is Trotsky or Stalin?

Tito, Kadar, Dubcek, Bucharin

[Hydesland]

Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland because they have a mix of around 70% private and 30 % state/public owned economy

They are also with small populations, and enjoy a great deal of trade with larger countries, among other things.

[Dododecapod]

Capitalism, with appropriate regulation, is self-sustaining and self-adjusting to a wide variety of economic states, governmental conditions and geographical difficulties without serious governmental intervention.

Socialism requires governmental input at all stages, making it more susceptible to government mismanagement and co-option to short term political agendas. Worse, without continuous government involvement, socialist systems cease to function effectively.

I'll take an engine that runs without having to be fine-tuned every five minutes, thanks.

[Meldaria]

The United States already has a socialist education system, why are they so opposed to socialist healthcare?

[Central Slavia]

Capitalism, with appropriate regulation, is self-sustaining and self-adjusting to a wide variety of economic states, governmental conditions and geographical difficulties without serious governmental intervention.

Socialism requires governmental input at all stages, making it more susceptible to government mismanagement and co-option to short term political agendas. Worse, without continuous government involvement, socialist systems cease to function effectively.

I'll take an engine that runs without having to be fine-tuned every five minutes, thanks.

But it still requires input just from an executive instead of commisary

[South Norwega]

Why are You pro Socialism as a Liberal?

You make it sound so unusual, actually Socialists and Liberals are on the exact same side of the political spectrum.

Not quite. You forget Classical Liberals, who are on the different side of the political spectrum, and actually support Liberalism in both economics and social policies. I oppose using Liberal as a synonym for Socialist.

[Dododecapod]

Capitalism, with appropriate regulation, is self-sustaining and self-adjusting to a wide variety of economic states, governmental conditions and geographical difficulties without serious governmental intervention.

Socialism requires governmental input at all stages, making it more susceptible to government mismanagement and co-option to short term political agendas. Worse, without continuous government involvement, socialist systems cease to function effectively.

I'll take an engine that runs without having to be fine-tuned every five minutes, thanks.

But it still requires input just from an executive instead of commisary

Certainly - that's where the "appropriate regulation" comes in. But that's just stuff like the SEC, FDA, and other regulation enforcement groups - things to make sure companies are obeying the basic laws of "don't screw over the consumer" and "don't rob the shareholders".

In a capitalist system, government has nothing to say about where and how much you sell your goods for, or where you buy from, or indeed, what you choose to make. In a socialist system, government is involved in the nitty-gritty of commerce and industry, instead of sitting back and giving general regulation.

[Uawc]

How many times must we continue the same argument over and over again? There are already a hundred other threads for this.

[Central Slavia]

Capitalism, with appropriate regulation, is self-sustaining and self-adjusting to a wide variety of economic states, governmental conditions and geographical difficulties without serious governmental intervention.

Socialism requires governmental input at all stages, making it more susceptible to government mismanagement and co-option to short term political agendas. Worse, without continuous government involvement, socialist systems cease to function effectively.

I'll take an engine that runs without having to be fine-tuned every five minutes, thanks.

But it still requires input just from an executive instead of commisary

Certainly - that's where the "appropriate regulation" comes in. But that's just stuff like the SEC, FDA, and other regulation enforcement groups - things to make sure companies are obeying the basic laws of "don't screw over the consumer" and "don't rob the shareholders".

In a capitalist system, government has nothing to say about where and how much you sell your goods for, or where you buy from, or indeed, what you choose to make. In a socialist system, government is involved in the nitty-gritty of commerce and industry, instead of sitting back and giving general regulation.

I disagree.
Everything is government's business, as far as it affects society in a significant way

[New Manvir]

The Real Question here is Trotsky or Stalin?

Stalin. Cause his mustache is better.

[Tergnitz]

I like barely regulated capitalism.

This.

Greed may run rampant, (as per human nature.) but its a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.

I agree with you fully on this. Capitalism lets individuals control their own lives, without interference from the state. They succeed or fail on their own merits and nobody is propped up unfairly.