Capitalism 104

[Autolykos]

Until common definitions for "capitalism", "socialism", etc. are agreed upon by all involved, this debate will keep going where it's been going: absolutely nowhere.

- Rob

[WindWip]

Hope these help. They are quite informative.

Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Autolykos]

If you think that providing links to certain definitions will automatically mean everyone involved in this thread agreeing to those definitions, you would be sorely mistaken.

- Rob

[WindWip]

I'm sure that we will have disagreements, but I haven't seen any yet. There's no reason to not debate an issue simply because we might disagree on a definition.

[Autolykos]

From what I've seen so far in this thread, almost everyone is using at least subtly different definitions for "capitalism", "socialism", and "communism". Until common definitions -- regardless of what they are -- exist among everyone involved, by mutual consent, there can be no debate.

What you may see as "debate" is, in fact, people merely talking past one another.

- Rob

[WindWip]

I've had plenty of good debates on communism, socialism and capitalism. The major underlying aspects of each form of government are agreed upon. The finer points might not be, but you can have a fine debate without fighting over those finer points. For example:

Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production.

This is a very basic definition of communism. It doesn't go into the more delicate points, and I highly doubt anyone with a decent head on their shoulders will disagree with anything stated there.

In any case this is a debate forum, right? When the issue of disagreement over definitions comes up, we can debate what we feel is the right definition and why. So far I haven't seen disagreements on the definitions though.

[Autolykos]

Then you must be blind.

For example, I do not consider capitalism to be a form of government at all. What say you to this?

Disagreements over definitions cannot be resolved, because definitions are inherently arbitrary. As a result, they can only be accepted or rejected.

- Rob

[WindWip]

Then you must be blind.

For example, I do not consider capitalism to be a form of government at all. What say you to this?

There are many definitions of the word 'capitalism'. One refers to the economic system, another refers to the governing body of a country that follows a capitalist economic system. Depending on how the word is used, a different definition is applied. If you tried to tell me that the word 'capitalism' is never used as a reference to governments, then I would call you very naive.

Disagreements over definitions cannot be resolved, because definitions are inherently arbitrary. As a result, they can only be accepted or rejected.

- Rob

You are absolutely wrong here. Definitions can easily be resolved. The example you just gave me shows this quite well. If the definitions of words were as arbitrary as you are claiming them to be, we would not be able to communicate, yet here we are.

[tman_ndsu08]

Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even simpler:

Capitalism: private property

Socialism: government property

Communism: no property

[Osborn F Enready]

Socialists and communists fail to see the forest for the trees.

Every single communist and socialist on here, from whatever nation, has American goods or services being used by their national leaders. This is intellectual hypocrisy, no matter how you call it, color it or flavor it.

The goods and services of the capitalist system, and of any free market are open to exploitation when nations who DON'T observe individual rights are allowed to interact with them. Why is that? Because communist and socialist nations don't enforce the rights of the people to interact with that market, ONLY themselves as national leaders. Its market tyranny, and direct disempowerment of the individuals, on all levels, from information to goods and services. Its abject abuse of power, and force, against its own people, for national profit, to carry-on and support a failed ideology which wouldn't exist today if not for the tolerance of the free-market and capitalism.

I haven't seen one anti-capitalist or anti-free-trade person on here yet, use a logical explanation, only emotional hype and fear mongering.

Bring out the debate.

[Century 25]

For example, I do not consider capitalism to be a form of government at all. What say you to this?

Neither is socialism.. unfortunately our "government" has been bought & paid for.. so essentially our so-called government is a.. syndicate. What else can you use to describe a Plutocracy..??

[fushigi]

Very true.. capitalism is a pyramid scheme.. not a thing more or less.. and the reason why it will trash the world... it can't forever "grow" as they love to spout..

Wrong. It's socialism that's a pyramid scheme, as it chooses to DISTRIBUTE limited wealth rather than seek to INCREASE it. Capitalism DOES create more value with less effort, increasing the efficiency of trade to its highest degree.

Adhering to the standards of comparative advantage allows every economic actor to use scarce resources in the most efficient way, rather than foolishly requiring every country to produce every necessary good.

No, capitalism--even regulated capitalism--cannot produce ENDLESS advantages, but it produces advantages more efficiently than any other system available.