Socialism and Capitalism correctly defined

"Hence the (once) successful model of Scandinavian countries, for instance. But hey Sweden has always been a capitalistic country as much as Italy or France. It was only ruled and governed by socialist parties, but never established a communist system."

You seem to be mixing communism and socialism aswell. Sweden isn't considered a capatalistic country nor a communistic country but a socialistic country. I guess the deffination of socialism is different in everyones mind. For me Socialism discribe a political system that is between communism and capitalism, in other words its nothing of the two but its a mix of the two.

"When you say "free", what do you mean? Since there are people getting paid to perform all these services, then someone has to pay the bill. The only way I could see this system work for a long period of time is for the country to be small, unemployment of zero, pay scales equal to a Saudi oil magnate, and zero people getting serious illnesses. Welfare is not a zero sum institution, if someone gets something, someone else has to pay."

Very true, we are the once that pay what we get for free, but it doesnt mean that our life is less of quality when you pay insurece for everything isntead of taxes. It is however nice that you can't be denied treatment, even if you don't pay tax (such as a homeless person) but the cost will be payed by everyone instead of that person that has no money. I would say its up to the induvidual to decide which system they like best, wouldnt say one is better then the other, they both have their ups and downs. In a capatalistic sociaty one pays for their own living, you dont fay for someone elses hospital bill, which is good if you enjoy that instead. As i said its induvidualy! :) Basicly the same just different ways of paying for it :)
 
Last edited:
AlexKall said:
Italian Guy said:
"Hence the (once) successful model of Scandinavian countries, for instance. But hey Sweden has always been a capitalistic country as much as Italy or France. It was only ruled and governed by socialist parties, but never established a communist system."
Click to expand...

You seem to be mixing communism and socialism aswell. Sweden isn't considered a capatalistic country nor a communistic country but a socialistic country. I guess the deffination of socialism is different in everyones mind. For me Socialism discribe a political system that is between communism and capitalism, in other words its nothing of the two but its a mix of the two.
Click to expand...

Capitalism is free market, private property, freedom of enterprise, profiteering. This is how Sweden works. The rest is nuances.
 
Sweden is a very well run country, I wouldnt mind liveing there if I had to.


Socalism seems to fit Scandanvian countries well.
 
Last edited:
Italian Guy said:
Capitalism is free market, private property, freedom of enterprise, profiteering. This is how Sweden works. The rest is nuances.
Click to expand...

Sweden is not a capatalistic state its a socialist with capatalism. The base system is Socialism.
 
I beg to differ. Where free market is, profit is recognized, private property is where families live, that's capitalism. If you have high taxes, public (not free) health care, and a substantious income redistribution, that's not stranger to capitalism. Come on capitalism is the economic system of all developed countries in the world.
 
Sweden is a mix of communism and capatalistic ideas, parts are owned by the state other parts are owned by the "free market". This is a mix of capatalism and communism.
 
I find it very interesting to read everybodies perception of the different models of gevernment and economic system.
What makes my hair crawl is the condescending tone you often hear here when people speak of "socialism" like it is some kind of disease. The succes of the system is downsized because people are "forced" to pay for others. But what is nobody minds about that? Sure you'll hear the occasional complained when you see how much of your salary goes to the government. But this quickly evaporates when they themselves or one of their loved ones needs medical attention.
On the other hand you might call us capitalist because firms have many free choices and relatively few regulations. Profit is profit and it is not a dirty word that corrupt people.
So you just decide for yourselve whether you call them socialist or capitalist, just don't start about neo-Marxist because that is not even in the same league.
 
Speaking of Scandinavia, the correct definition of the Scandinavian political model is social capitalism and social democracy, featuring a combination of free market activity and government intervention. The gouvernment control certain key areas but allows private investors and share owners to play the game as long as the gouvernment controls the majority of shares.

We can say a lot about taxes, but we tend to forget that we can legally withdraw serious amounts of money from the tax report making the general tax level surprisingly low compared to the yearly income.
 
Last edited:
sunb! said:
We can say a lot about taxes, but we tend to forget that we can legally withdraw serious amounts of money from the tax report making the general tax level surprisingly low compared to the yearly income.
Click to expand...

Could you give us a definition of surprisingly low???? Perhaps I am mistaken, but it was my impression that Swedish people, especially those in the upper income brackets paid more than half of there gross income to the government.
 
I am not sure how they manage that in Sweden, but in Holland it is the following:
We divide your income in different scales and the higher the scale the more you pay for taxes.
scale 1: < €16.265 the tax is 1%
scale 2: €16.265 - €29.543 the tax is 7.95%
scale 3: €29.543 - €50.652 the tax is 42%
scale 4: > €50.652 the tax is 52%

So if you make if you make more then €50.652 you pay: €162 for scale 1, €1055 for 2, €8865 for 3 and 52% over what you earn above that limit.

Some might call it too much but that is when things go their way. If they are hospitalized and all gets payed for you rarely hear them. If this isn't something for you, immigrate. But stay away once old age makes you needy for a lot of medical attention. They are making laws preventing people to benefit if they lived in some tax-paradise during their working years. Pay next to no tax and then profit. That is what I call a bloody parasite. They can have their money, but they'll have to pay for it afterwards!
 
Last edited:
Ted said:
scale 2: €16.265 - €29.543 the tax is 7.95%
scale 3: €29.543 - €50.652 the tax is 42%
scale 4: > €50.652 the tax is 52%
Click to expand...


The gap there is extreme, you really do punish the wealthy for being wealthy.
 
I think it is more a matter of each contributing according to the means they possess. The more you have the greater your ability to pay. A very foreign concept to Americans like myself but one that I find holding greater merit the more I learn of the benefits to the society as a whole as the case may be in many European countries.

LG, still waiting for those quintescential archetypes by which we may debate the merits of the systems you have so broadly painted... ;)
 
localgrizzly said:
Could you give us a definition of surprisingly low????
Click to expand...

An example is hard to give you without giving a lecture in Norwegian tax law, but it is very well possible to get a tax level of 20% instead of the bitter 36% - all depending on your life situation and private economy matters.
 
Last edited:
Well Rabs, that is just a question of perception. Usually, the richer you get, the more you see it as punishment. You see people who benefitted from the system turn into bitter opponents when they start to make more.

Our tax system is based on the principle Bulldogg implied. "The broadest shoulders should carry the heaviest load". It sounds socialist and it might very well be! Some would call it biblical or have other reasons for accepting this. In general it is something we complain about but we secretly know that it is for the best. As I said before; none who really needed this system complain afterwards, be they rich or poor!
 
bulldogg said:
And there are many blended systems out there which would render a black and white debate something quite fool hardy. LG, could you further illustrate your argument with a tangible real world representation of each system as you understand it?
Click to expand...

Capitalism: an economic system in which investment in, and ownership of production and distribution is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals and corporations.

Socialism: A theory or system of social organzation that advocates the ownership and control of industry, capital and land by the communty as a whole.

Direct quote from Webster's dictionary.

Karl Marx was a proponent of public ownership of land, and the means of production and distribution. e.i., he was a socialist.

There are no **pure** socialist or capitalist countries in the world today, with the exceptin of China, North Korea and Vietnam. But there are many "neo Marxist" countries where the means of production and distibution are more or less privately owned, but are so tightly managed and heavily taxed by the public sector, for the benefit of "the public" rather than their owners, that there is little real world, practical difference between them and socialism.

You ask for examples. How about France? Germany? Belgium?

The "welfare state," whether mostly socialist, or partially capitalist is a neo Marxist institution. Cetainly not true Marxism. But closer to Marxism than to true captalism. i.e., neo Marxist.
 
Last edited:
localgrizzly said:
Ted,

Please explain to me how you can disagree. In a capitalist society, a person gets to ebnjoy the fruits of his labor, and isn't required by law to support those too lazy to labor.

In a socialist society, everyone is "entitled" to "the good life" even if he makes no attempt to earn it. Social parasites are rewarded. Hell, social parasitism is actively encouraged.
Click to expand...

Your missing one thing about a socialist gov't, the human factor. With a socialist gov't the gov't is incharge and calls the shots. If they say you get $2.25 and hour you get $2.25 an hour. And if a nutball on a power trip feels that he should be the one calling the shots, he can railroaded the gov't and no one can do anything to stop him.

Now with a capitialist gov't the people call the shots, they say whats goes. IF they want $7.50 an hour they get $7.50 an hour. And if they dislike something the gov't does they can protest, they can protest in the streets and stop traffic. But, they may only protest to an extent, when lives or property are at rick the authorities steps in.

Lets say that you live in a socialist gov't and you disagree with it, there is a good chance of you being shot.
I for one prefer a capitailist gov't. If I had an idea and I marketed it, I could make millions, but with a socialist gov't the gov't says I must share my wealth and even if so how become wealthy.

Also, have you noticed how alot of people from a socialist or communist gov't are always tryng to escape it and come here to America, a capitalist nation?

EDIT: Forgot to ad the number of freedoms that the peole a capitalist gov't have.
 
Last edited:
Execlty why the mix of Socialism and Capatalism is so good, it mixed the goods from the both :) Meaning you wont have above problem :)

"Now with a capitialist gov't the people call the shots, they say whats goes. IF they want $7.50 an hour they get $7.50 an hour. And if they dislike something the gov't does they can protest, they can protest in the streets and stop traffic. But, they may only protest to an extent, when lives or property are at rick the authorities steps in."

I would rather say that its the market that sets the earnings, not the person doing the work.
It seems however that in the description of socialism you are rather thinking of Communism, Stalin way of rule.
 
Last edited:
AlexKall said:
Execlty why the mix of Socialism and Capatalism is so good, it mixed the goods from the both :) Meaning you wont have above problem :)

"Now with a capitialist gov't the people call the shots, they say whats goes. IF they want $7.50 an hour they get $7.50 an hour. And if they dislike something the gov't does they can protest, they can protest in the streets and stop traffic. But, they may only protest to an extent, when lives or property are at rick the authorities steps in."

I would rather say that its the market that sets the earnings, not the person doing the work.
It seems however that in the description of socialism you are rather thinking of Communism, Stalin way of rule.
Click to expand...



I guess it depends upon what line of work you in and if you are working for a company or yourself.

True be told the U.S. is a mix of a Socialist and Capitalist gov't. You can invest, build your own company, or work for someone else at your will, but if you decide to not work you still get an income and everyone can get a job and be paid a set minimum wage.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top