Greatest debate in modern history? Socialism(not Stalinism) vs Capitalism

  • Context: History 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AlexES16
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    History
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the debate between socialism and capitalism, with participants expressing varied opinions based on personal experiences and societal observations. One user advocates for socialism, citing ideals of equality and personal happiness, while others argue for capitalism, emphasizing the importance of hard work and individual incentives. The conversation highlights the complexities of mixed economies, particularly in Central American contexts like El Salvador and Honduras, where corruption and oligopolies hinder economic growth. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards a mixed economy that incorporates elements of both systems to address societal needs.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of economic systems: socialism and capitalism
  • Familiarity with mixed economies and their implications
  • Knowledge of Central American socio-economic contexts
  • Awareness of historical impacts of government intervention in markets
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the principles of mixed economies and their effectiveness
  • Explore case studies of economic systems in Central America, focusing on El Salvador and Honduras
  • Investigate the role of government intervention in market economies
  • Examine the historical outcomes of socialism versus capitalism in various countries
USEFUL FOR

Economists, political scientists, students of social policy, and anyone interested in the dynamics of economic systems and their societal impacts.

  • #331
Frame Dragger said:
...And none of that would have mattered in the long haul. Britain was decimated by WWI, and frankly history has shown just how much that non-agression pact was worth, eh? You don't need to cross the Channel, if you simply STARVE them. What do you think would happen to the UK, cut-off from the rest of Europe, AND the USA? No one would leave the UK alone in such a situation, and one way or another they would be killed, besieged, or conquered. The fact that it would take time, would be largely irrelevant to my point.
Non-sequitor. That has little or nothing to do with your point on the outcome dependency of the Soviets entering or not entering the war.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #332
mheslep said:
Non-sequitor. That has little or nothing to do with your point on the outcome dependency of the Soviets entering or not entering the war.

What? I didn't make that point... The Soviets DID enter the war, as a result of German aggression. There is no reason to believe that Hitler would have moderated himself in any circumstances.

My point is, and was, that the UK depended on Allied forces, and subsequent NATO involvement in the partitioning of Germany. What are you talking about?

EDIT: Oooh, I see, my response to the Manatee...
OK, I'm saying that the UK, as a terribly weakened and isolated nation was bound to be snapped-up by one of the dominant powers at the time, and if Russia didn't become involved, then the Germans would have finished the job; they were fairly clear on that in their planning. If the Soviets then became involved in some "What IF?!" scenario, I sincerely doubt that they would have won. In fact, destroying or occupying GB would be critical in closing the western front in that case.

All of this is somewhat tangential, as we were all originally talking about NATO and its role. You're rat-chasing Sea Cow's deflections... something I have found to be singularly unenlightening.
 
Last edited:
  • #333
Frame Dragger said:
What? I didn't make that point...
Here:
Sea Cow said:
How would WW2 have gone without Soviet assistance?[..]

Frame Dragger said:
You would be speaking German, instead of Russian. ...
 
  • #334
mheslep said:
Here:

You just sort of ignored my edit... from... well before you posted. :rolleyes:
 
  • #335
Frame Dragger said:
You just sort of ignored my edit... from... well before you posted. :rolleyes:
ok, missed it
 
  • #336
mheslep said:
ok, missed it

Yeah... not really something that needed confirmation, but thanks! Always good to engage in intelligent dialogue with a master of prose from the laconic school. You'll have to forgive me if I choose not to engage with someone who repsonds in a way that would make a Haiku feel cheated. I prefer not to see the thread locked because you want to start a pissing match on PF.
 
  • #337
Guys, get it under control. There are too many people nitpicking tangential points and ignoring the main topics for discussion. If you're here just for petty arguments, leave. That's trolling and it is not acceptable here.
 
  • #338
russ_watters said:
We had quite a lengthy discussion of that topic and though the author of that makes what looks like a compelling point at first glance, one doesn't have to go much deeper to see the point is clearly flawed. The most obvious and damning fact against his point is that inequality is increasing in most western countries, yet most of those measures are improving.

Actually what I meant to say was fettered capitalism with socialist elements.

Not socialism.
 
  • #339
Nusc said:
Actually what I meant to say was fettered capitalism with socialist elements.

Not socialism.
Um, ok...but do you still base that opinion on a study with clearly specious logic?
 
  • #340
russ_watters said:
Um, ok...but do you still base that opinion on a study with clearly specious logic?

Russ, this is politics. We don't use studies to form our opinions, just as bludgeons on those with whom we disagree.
 
  • #341
brainstorm said:
Everything you type oozes with anti-Americanist, anti-capitalist propaganda.

No. Anti-republican.

brainstorm said:
Don't call people "you guys," if you don't want to sound like an uber-nationalist.

You say, "you guys" are "still" fighting over basic healthcare, as if your superior people have progressed beyond that primitive issue.

I'm referring libertarians. You guys are so into your issues it's delusional.

"This Sarah Palin phenomenon is very curious. I think somebody watching us from Mars, they would think the country has gone insane." - Noam Chomsky

Why necessarily Mars?

brainstorm said:
Take all the profit out of US health industries and see if the Canadian system would avoid bankruptcy.

Give me a study.
 
Last edited:
  • #342
russ_watters said:
Um, ok...but do you still base that opinion on a study with clearly specious logic?

Man if congress consisted of only philosophers that would be very annoying.
 
  • #343
Nusc said:
Man if congress consisted of only philosophers that would be very annoying.

I'm curious, do you have any interest at all in a reasonable discussion on the topic at hand, or are you only interested in offering this polemic? This thread has been quite interesting until you and the Manatee/Dugong decided thatit would be more fun to troll than anything else. Frankly I'd be thrilled to see a moderator roll this thread back to the last substational discussion that was being had.

This trajectory you're following ends with this thread locked (which may be what you want), or simply continuing to devolve. I don't really think that's fair to the rest of us who would prefer not to resort to what amounts to petty name-calling.
 
  • #344
Closed pending cleanup.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
10K
  • · Replies 107 ·
4
Replies
107
Views
14K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
8K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K