Socialism...

[Galant]

"Socialism says you will be taken care of, non-socialism says you must take care of others."


?

[Blub2k]

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

definition of socialism by Dictionary.com

The emphasis is on the collective in the original theories.

As if Capitalism even gave a sh**.

[Auran]

If applied properly, capatilism would give a sh**, as you so eloquently put it. The trouble is too many companies, governments look short term rather than long term. Though quite how you get someone to put in place actions that they won't be around to see the benefit of is the quandry.

[nichomach]

Well, that's the problem; governments don't look beyond the next election, and most companies don't look beyond their year's end financials. It's an inherent weakness of capitalism; the only requirement placed upon companies is to generate profit for their shareholders. Expecting things like social responsibility from a plc is rather like expecting a dog to walk upon its hind legs - you can train it to do it to a certain extent, but it wasn't designed for it and it always looks a bit awkward doing it...

As far as Galant's definition, I would argue that capitalism states that we should all look out for ourselves, while socialism states that we should all look out for each other.

[Blub2k]

Agree heartily with Nochmach.

[Byatt]

As far as Galant's definition, I would argue that capitalism states that we should all look out for ourselves, while socialism states that we should all look out for each other.

Isn't one of the fundamental principles of capitalism that by looking out for ourselves first and foremost, we look after everyone (by generating higher income, being more productive, etc) indirectly? I'm not saying it's the truth, but this seems to be an open ended thread. So here's an open end

Someone with more time google invisible hand theorem (think it's called that)

[Blub2k]

Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it...He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.


Sounds like a crock to me, only works before you introduce multinationals who syphon all their money off tax-free

[Galant]

Put another way - socialism has a tendency to create individuals dependent upon the govmt, living off it, expecting it to provide for them and almost tell them what to do with their lives.

??

[Blub2k]

What exactly is your point there Galant, are you commenting on the "invisible hand" theory that I googled above or harking back to define your original point again?