What is capitalism,socialism libertriamism,etc?

[littlebuddy]

Alot of you in here seem pretty smart and well-read, so how about explaining, in terms a not so smart person such as myself could understand, what is capitalism[[good and bad points) socialism[[good and bad points) libertariamism[[good and bad points) and some of the other isms floating around. A nice and reasonable discussion with examples would be great.

[Pam]

Alot of you in here seem pretty smart and well-read, so how about explaining, in terms a not so smart person such as myself could understand, what is capitalism[[good and bad points) socialism[[good and bad points) libertariamism[[good and bad points) and some of the other isms floating around. A nice and reasonable discussion with examples would be great.

Have you considered using Google? Or Wikipedia perhaps? Or maybe the public library? Nice and reasonable might not happen here.

[elganned]

I have to concur with Pam. To fully explain these "isms" would not only take a lot of time and typing but spark more contention and controversy [[since there are as many different flavors of, say, "capitalism" as there are people posting) during which debate the original purpose--to answer your questions--will I believe inevitably be lost.

Start with Wikipedia. They will give you the basics, but you'll have to do some further reading to understand the implications of each philosophy.

Good luck. Don't stop learning.

[ejames01]

The best way to get smarter is to STUDY!

Alot of you in here seem pretty smart and well-read, so how about explaining, in terms a not so smart person such as myself could understand, what is capitalism[[good and bad points) socialism[[good and bad points) libertariamism[[good and bad points) and some of the other isms floating around. A nice and reasonable discussion with examples would be great.

[rb336]

libertarianism has at least two major varieties -
Social libertaians are, essentially, ACLU types concerned with personal freedoms, etc., and view govt as a means of insuring those freedoms, and as a buffer against the tyranny of corporations

Libertarian party libertarians are more of the "privatize everything" type - govt only for military, police, etc.

politically, libertarianism started off as an anti-property rights movement in the 1800s.

typically, its general usage in the US is different than everywhere else, where libertarianisn is synonymous with anarchism, or very close to it. current US meaning seems to be somewhere between minimalism in the powers of the state, and anarcho-capitalism

[ccbatson]

Keeping it simple.

1. Socialism; government/the state controls the means of production and therefore the economy.
2. Capitalism; a just and free market arbitrated, as a constitutionally limited power of government, drives the economy.
3. Libertarianism: Less government involvement than 1 and 2 above....basic defense is the only legitimate role.

[jams]

Capitalism is an economic system.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy.

Socialism is a political philosophy based on economics.

So a direct comparison is really not valid..

i

[ccbatson]

If you limit your thoughts to a myopic view as Jams suggest, then he is correct. However, if you take the origins and implications of the concepts into consideration, then they are legitimately comparable concepts.

[elganned]

Keeping it simple.

1. Socialism; government/the state controls the means of production and therefore the economy.

Correction: Government owns the means of production, not merely controls it.

2. Capitalism; a just and free market arbitrated, as a constitutionally limited power of government, drives the economy.

Begging the question. Capitalism does not require justice or freedom, only private ownership of the means of production. The rest is your own biased embellishment.

3. Libertarianism: Less government involvement than 1 and 2 above....basic defense is the only legitimate role.

Actually a contiuum not on the same scale as the first two--on the Y axis, with Totalitarianism at the other end, while Socialism and Capitalism are on the X axis. There are both "socialist" and "capitalist" Libertarians--at least the ones I've spoken with.

[jams]

If you limit your thoughts to a myopic view as Jams suggest, then he is correct. However, if you take the origins and implications of the concepts into consideration, then they are legitimately comparable concepts.

I'm sorry, I'm still awaiting delivery of my copy of the Official, but unpublished, Glossary of Batsonia, , but I guess it is hard to nail down fluid definitions.

[Ray1936]

I'm sorry, I'm still awaiting delivery of my copy of the Official, but unpublished, Glossary of Batsonia, , but I guess it is hard to nail down fluid definitions.

Here's the copy I got, jams. [[Apologies, Bats, I couldn't resist.)

[jams]

Beautiful, Ray1936, just beautiful!

[oladub]

I agree with elgannad's definitions.

This might help. This is from an old thread. However, I have some better explanations as I think the titles below in the image are misleading.

Most politicians listed are along a SW-NE line.
SW corner - liberal
NE corner - right winger
As measured along this line, Tancredo is the most right wing while Nader is the most liberal.

Top edge - social authoritarian
Bottom edge - social libertarian
Left edge - economic authoritarian
Right edge - economic libertarian
For instance, the most socially libertarian, in order, are Nader, Gravel, Kucinich. Paul. The most economically libertarian are Paul, Tancredo, Gingrich, Gravel.

NW corner - Socially and Economically Totalitarian
SE corner - Socially and Economically Libertarian
For instance, the most libertarian, combining social and economic libertarianism, are in order Gravel, Paul, Clinton. The most totally totalitarian are Keyes, Nader, Romney as measured on a diagonal grid.

[jams]

With apologies:

Feudalism begat capitalism.

Capitalism begat socialism.

And where the truth lies, you'll find a bastard.

[Jimaz]

Pastafarianism

[jams]

Love it! Need to add characters to post short thoughts.

[rb336]

Keeping it simple.

and, characteristically, simple-minded and factually WRONG

[jiminnm]

"Correction: Government owns the means of production, not merely controls it."

Actually, elganned, you have defined communism, not socialism. From a pure economic definition, CC is right.

[Johnlodge]

Capitalism is an economic system.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy.

Socialism is a political philosophy based on economics.

So a direct comparison is really not valid..

i

It is my understanding that Socialism is an economic system, as is Capitalism. Communism is both political and economic, as it requires a socialist economic system by definition. But one could have a Socialist Democracy, whereas the economic system is socialist, but the political system is a Democracy.

Of course any real system falls somewhere along the spectrum, and is not 100% of any of these.

[rb336]

It is my understanding that Socialism is an economic system, as is Capitalism. Communism is both political and economic, as it requires a socialist economic system by definition. But one could have a Socialist Democracy, whereas the economic system is socialist, but the political system is a Democracy.

Of course any real system falls somewhere along the spectrum, and is not 100% of any of these.

i'm a huge fan of the mixed economy approach that stood us so well from 1949-1981. Strong unions, 75% highest marginal tax rate, upper 1% controlling only half the wealth [[as opposed to today, where the upper 1% make more than the lowest 95% COMBINED), growning, instead of shrinking, middle class

[Pam]

Little Buddy, maybe this new film will help you out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeROnVUADj0

[Detroitej72]

i'm a huge fan of the mixed economy approach that stood us so well from 1949-1981. Strong unions, 75% highest marginal tax rate, upper 1% controlling only half the wealth [[as opposed to today, where the upper 1% make more than the lowest 95% COMBINED), growing, instead of shrinking, middle class

Unfortunately, the haves didn't agree with your assessment and changed the rules to better suit their needs and now, for the last 28 or so years, we've seen a reversal of the prosperity.

Now, unless we have a total collapse of our system, I don't think it is realistic to turn back the clock, since trickle-down economics is embedded on people's brains. Compound that with how the radio air waves are monopolized with right wing propaganda experts who continuously feed the masses distorted facts and out right lies.

Because these folks have become masters of deception, many American's are terrified anytime they hear words like liberal, socialism, union worker, activist, etc.

[ccbatson]

The definitions need to be rooted in the constitution in order to be relevant.

Socialist libertarian? impossible.

[elganned]

The definitions need to be rooted in the constitution in order to be relevant.

Says who? The definitions are whatever the proponents say they are. Or are you claiming to be the final arbiter?

Socialist libertarian? impossible.

I should introduce you to my friend. You'd be surprised.

[rb336]

The definitions need to be rooted in the constitution in order to be relevant.

Socialist libertarian? impossible.

god, bats, are you kidding?

find ONE definition of any economic system rooted in the constitution, include exactly which passages in the constitution are its roots