Capitalism or Socialism?

[Kure Kurda!]

Any thing is fine as long as it serves people . Show me one successful country and I will choose their system no matter what it is .

I think Sweden have a pretty good system, no one is starving everybody have food for the day and its the social program is very good mean while the have a normal strong army/the technology is advance to.
And the corruption is pretty low/invincible, until now the media reviled that sweden have made weapon fabrics in Saudi Arabia and worked together for 25 years.

The swedish system is alright, though it really pisses me off how people abuse the system in Sweden , making kids everyday and live on social welfare, particularly the somalis. The more kids, the more money. I know that there are also Kurds who abuse it. And that's some of the things I find wrong in Socialism. Everybody has to contribute to the economy and not just taking from it.

hehe
I know the goddam somlias and there 30 kids, Everyone who don't want to work in sweden can just rest home because the will still get 1100 dollar per month(if 2 parent 2200 dollar) and that very very very wrong to just get paid for nothing

But its easy to handle the problem move all the fabric from china to sweden then the somalia kids can work there for low paid and that will stop the criminals(mostly somalias)

[kurd28]

democracy - this is fake.

capitalism - ok than what? will you be richer just because of this? most poor countries have free marked. (yes they are mostly isolated. but mostly african countries)

a strong army - if you dont have economical support from the west, or if you are not imperialistic, it will suck all the countries ressources. (and then you cant have "well-developed social program for people")

again well-developed social program for people - if the country is capitalist, this is impossible. dont think you will be a new germany, japan or france in just 10 years.

1) I mean democracy in the form in which it must be (freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc.), but not the democracy that the U.S. imposes on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.

2) To make capitalism work well for the country and the people need is not so much. Good competition policy that the business was competitive, and so nebylo corruption.
If our country is socialism, then we will be in isolation from the west. Look at Cuba, North Korea - they are outcasts and live by themselves, and the people of their suffering

3) to a powerful army needs the support of the West. yet we have oil, this support is provided to us. We have a lot of oil, but if the economy is pure raw material is very bad. There should be a high level of innovation, a highly developed and continuously upgradeable economy. rate in the economy should not be in the oil (oil is a bonus), and the man (as in Japan, Israel)

4) that was a good social program for people in the country, there should be no corruption. Under socialism, people live well, but it is all limited. Sweden - this is capitalism. North Korea - it is socialism. Compare these two countries here to get where the best social program.

dont think you will be a new germany, japan or france in just 10 years.

for 10 years did not change, but also in Germany, Japan and France did not immediately turned on. and we should not compare us with sovereign countries with 1,000 years of history.
all of their processes in the country were in a natural way, as opposed to us. these are the last 10 years we started to decide something in his region.

[jjmuneer]

there are nothing such as mixed economy. there are capitalist countries with big public sector (like russia and other former red block countries, danmark, normay, sweden and so on...) and there are capitalist countries with little public sector (like USA, mexico, japan and so on)

i am for socialism. like albert einstein sad: “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” (he was socialist)

No my friend. There is such thing as a mixed economy, actually thinking about most economies in the world are mixed economies technically speaking. See in the free market there are market failures that only socialism can cover. Hence why the USA, Britain... aren't purely a capitalist country. Since as you say they have public sector industries.

[jjmuneer]

What I mean is that when you are more isolated then others will go forward in technology while you are behind, like USSR. In simple daily life stuff. Like the cars in USSR couldn't compete to american or european cars since they didn't have anyone to compete with. People could only buy one type of clothes both for women and men, one type of car etc that's what I mean.

isolated? the west isolates allmost all the world for its own business. example it isolates africa. F*ck technology if it is buy every month a new phone, spending all resources on unusable things, and the worst of all spending resources that doesnt belong you but you suck other countries resources.

USSR where behind because USA had much more resources and money from those countries it did steal resouces from. The west is democratic in the west, but outside the west they are double faced and supports dictators. USA is the country wich supports most dictators with weapon.

1% of the world population owns 40% of all world resources, and there die 30 000 children every day because of hunger.

i'm not leninist, but he saw the future very good. he sad the highest stage of capitalism would be imperialism. just like today.

Well USSR did isolate themself from the world, look at the depression, USSR wasn't affected at all while the rest of the world was! That's a positive thing but look after 2nd world war, what happened to USSR then?
Compare South Korea to North Korea. S Korea with US influence look how rich it has become and look at North Korea, where it's people are starving daily.
I am against Imperialsm but compare the US imperialsm to the USSR. Compare Poland, Baltikum, Kazakhistan etc to how it is now. USSR isloated their people from their rest of the world, how the people of USSR were suffering while the rest of the world were progressing. Look at West Germany to East Germany. USSR, less resources?! They are the worlds biggest country, with all kind of resource. Oil, gas, iron, limber, uranium etc Much more than US. That's how the world works today if you don't have money you don't have ANYTHING.

You are wrong bro. The USSR did not isolate itself, the USA isolated the USSR. The USA set its policy at "preventing communism from spreading", thus the 'truman doctrine' was created. This set about containing communism by closing borders, trade, and people migrating from west to east or vice versa. The USSR atually was probably more developed than the US in metal industries, and could of probably of produced much much more, as it had much better efficeient factories than the US. The only problem is that it could not get raw materials because of the long blockade that was imposed on it by the west.

[unitedkurdistan]

Well USSR did isolate themself from the world, look at the depression, USSR wasn't affected at all while the rest of the world was! That's a positive thing but look after 2nd world war, what happened to USSR then?
Compare South Korea to North Korea. S Korea with US influence look how rich it has become and look at North Korea, where it's people are starving daily.
I am against Imperialsm but compare the US imperialsm to the USSR. Compare Poland, Baltikum, Kazakhistan etc to how it is now. USSR isloated their people from their rest of the world, how the people of USSR were suffering while the rest of the world were progressing. Look at West Germany to East Germany. USSR, less resources?! They are the worlds biggest country, with all kind of resource. Oil, gas, iron, limber, uranium etc Much more than US. That's how the world works today if you don't have money you don't have ANYTHING.

You are wrong bro. The USSR did not isolate itself, the USA isolated the USSR. The USA set its policy at "preventing communism from spreading", thus the 'truman doctrine' was created. This set about containing communism by closing borders, trade, and people migrating from west to east or vice versa. The USSR atually was probably more developed than the US in metal industries, and could of probably of produced much much more, as it had much better efficeient factories than the US. The only problem is that it could not get raw materials because of the long blockade that was imposed on it by the west.[/quote]


I mean before WW1 and 2. Not after.
Stalin had to sacrifise alot to develop their metal industry in the first place. ANd when was this blockade? Do you mean during cold war? Cause during WW2 US supplied USSR with military supplies, food etc. WIth Isolate I mean socialism, they weren't dependent on trade with others.

[jjmuneer]

Well USSR did isolate themself from the world, look at the depression, USSR wasn't affected at all while the rest of the world was! That's a positive thing but look after 2nd world war, what happened to USSR then?
Compare South Korea to North Korea. S Korea with US influence look how rich it has become and look at North Korea, where it's people are starving daily.
I am against Imperialsm but compare the US imperialsm to the USSR. Compare Poland, Baltikum, Kazakhistan etc to how it is now. USSR isloated their people from their rest of the world, how the people of USSR were suffering while the rest of the world were progressing. Look at West Germany to East Germany. USSR, less resources?! They are the worlds biggest country, with all kind of resource. Oil, gas, iron, limber, uranium etc Much more than US. That's how the world works today if you don't have money you don't have ANYTHING.

You are wrong bro. The USSR did not isolate itself, the USA isolated the USSR. The USA set its policy at "preventing communism from spreading", thus the 'truman doctrine' was created. This set about containing communism by closing borders, trade, and people migrating from west to east or vice versa. The USSR atually was probably more developed than the US in metal industries, and could of probably of produced much much more, as it had much better efficeient factories than the US. The only problem is that it could not get raw materials because of the long blockade that was imposed on it by the west.

I mean before WW1 and 2. Not after.
Stalin had to sacrifise alot to develop their metal industry in the first place. ANd when was this blockade? Do you mean during cold war? Cause during WW2 US supplied USSR with military supplies, food etc. WIth Isolate I mean socialism, they weren't dependent on trade with others.[/quote]

The communists weren't in power before WW1.
I wouldn't call it "sacrifice", rather a priotization over the metal industries over other industries. During WW2 the USA didn't really supply the USSR, they helped in aid, but it was limited. Plus the USSR didn't trust the USA. The USSR moved their factories inwards to Siberia when the Germans came. Socialism has nothing to do with dependancy on trade, socialism aimed to be a self-sufficient system. Regardless of economic system, trade is needed, one resource in exchange for another, or money nower days. Anyways capitalism is an advocate of 'free trade'.

[kurd-sthanam]

The great depression was in the 1920's were russian revolution was 3 years old. that time, russia was even not capitalist, russia was feodalist. russia had no industrial revolution, the industrial revolution of russia came first after the russian revolution. USA was bigger and more advanced economy than the tsar russia. alaska belonged to russia but they sold it to USA. so dont compare great depression and so on.

yesterday i was going to write about north- and south korea but i stopped.
what USA do: they suck money/resources from south america, africa and so on, and than they support huge to south korea with money. they bomb north koreas economy to death and than what they say is, "cant you see, south korea is capitalist and it works better". the same goes with germany. what USSR and other countries fail is, it was not an advanced capitalist state but it was poor feodalist military country and it wanted to jump the capitalist phase of economy over and planned socialism instead. the second fail was to go for socialism in one state.

socialism is not possible if it only comes from revolution in colonial poor countries. but yes even then, it will be much better for the people who lives there. cuba is very good example. before the revolution it was USA-colony. but after the revolution, they have now worlds best public health system, they have worlds cheapest medicines, they are the country wich sends most doctors outside the country. cubas population is on of the worlds longest educated people, even they will not have much more money compared to workers there. and all this with a blockade USA and big part of south america. look this, very interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Cuba

[kurd-sthanam]

No my friend. There is such thing as a mixed economy, actually thinking about most economies in the world are mixed economies technically speaking. See in the free market there are market failures that only socialism can cover. Hence why the USA, Britain... aren't purely a capitalist country. Since as you say they have public sector industries.

no there is not , are there not capital, are there not free marked? then it is capitalism. china, vietnam are capitalist. the more harsh type is nowadays neo-liberalism, like ACTA. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=citzRjwk-sQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&hd=1   

[jjmuneer]

No my friend. There is such thing as a mixed economy, actually thinking about most economies in the world are mixed economies technically speaking. See in the free market there are market failures that only socialism can cover. Hence why the USA, Britain... aren't purely a capitalist country. Since as you say they have public sector industries.

no there is not , are there not capital, are there not free marked? then it is capitalism. china, vietnam are capitalist. the more harsh type is nowadays neo-liberalism, like ACTA. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=citzRjwk-sQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&hd=1   

What are the Health services? Education service? Army/police service? Government provided.

[kurd-sthanam]

No my friend. There is such thing as a mixed economy, actually thinking about most economies in the world are mixed economies technically speaking. See in the free market there are market failures that only socialism can cover. Hence why the USA, Britain... aren't purely a capitalist country. Since as you say they have public sector industries.

no there is not , are there not capital, are there not free marked? then it is capitalism. china, vietnam are capitalist. the more harsh type is nowadays neo-liberalism, like ACTA. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=citzRjwk-sQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&hd=1   

What are the Health services? Education service? Army/police service? Government provided.

so USA is not capitalist? USA have all of this.

capitalism is free market, socialism is plan-economy, where the whole economy is planned and there are no market or market effects. i know your argue, we had it on highschool.

[jjmuneer]

Huh? There is no argument or opinion, it is a fact no economy in the world is purely free market. Education is provided for by the government, and so is the national defense/police. They aren't privately owned, which means they aren't purely free market. Plus the US to the poorest familes in the US provide 'food stamps'. Its' not my opinion, its a fact lol.

[unitedkurdistan]

I mean before WW1 and 2. Not after.
Stalin had to sacrifise alot to develop their metal industry in the first place. ANd when was this blockade? Do you mean during cold war? Cause during WW2 US supplied USSR with military supplies, food etc. WIth Isolate I mean socialism, they weren't dependent on trade with others.[/quote]

The communists weren't in power before WW1.
I wouldn't call it "sacrifice", rather a priotization over the metal industries over other industries. During WW2 the USA didn't really supply the USSR, they helped in aid, but it was limited. Plus the USSR didn't trust the USA. The USSR moved their factories inwards to Siberia when the Germans came. Socialism has nothing to do with dependancy on trade, socialism aimed to be a self-sufficient system. Regardless of economic system, trade is needed, one resource in exchange for another, or money nower days. Anyways capitalism is an advocate of 'free trade'.[/quote]

Then why didn't the great depression affect USSR? Because it was communist and in a communist society every one is equal and almost everyone is guaranteed a job. Even some americans fled to USSR. The tensions between US and USSR started after 2nd WW. US supplied/ aided USSR with plenty of resources, warplanes, ammo etc. THat's what I mean "socialism aimed to be a self-sufficient system"

[jjmuneer]

The great depression didn't affect the USSR because Russia itself wasn't "intergrated" into Europe, economically I mean. It's economic system was not attached to the other capitalist nations at the time. The great depression probably did affect the USSR, just not in the way it affected the Wiemar republic or the USA itself. In terms of trade probably decreased to the USSR.
Actually the cold war in my opinion began after WW1 when the soviets took over Russia, because when the Russian civil war happened the western forces sent in troops to aid the right wing capitalists. I guess you could say WW2 was the tick.

[unitedkurdistan]

The great depression was in the 1920's were russian revolution was 3 years old. that time, russia was even not capitalist, russia was feodalist. russia had no industrial revolution, the industrial revolution of russia came first after the russian revolution. USA was bigger and more advanced economy than the tsar russia. alaska belonged to russia but they sold it to USA. so dont compare great depression and so on.

yesterday i was going to write about north- and south korea but i stopped.
what USA do: they suck money/resources from south america, africa and so on, and than they support huge to south korea with money. they bomb north koreas economy to death and than what they say is, "cant you see, south korea is capitalist and it works better". the same goes with germany. what USSR and other countries fail is, it was not an advanced capitalist state but it was poor feodalist military country and it wanted to jump the capitalist phase of economy over and planned socialism instead. the second fail was to go for socialism in one state.

socialism is not possible if it only comes from revolution in colonial poor countries. but yes even then, it will be much better for the people who lives there. cuba is very good example. before the revolution it was USA-colony. but after the revolution, they have now worlds best public health system, they have worlds cheapest medicines, they are the country wich sends most doctors outside the country. cubas population is on of the worlds longest educated people, even they will not have much more money compared to workers there. and all this with a blockade USA and big part of south america. look this, very interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Cuba

US doesn't steal, they offer something in boths favour. Look at the Panama canal, US built it so ships from Europe wouldn't have to go around south america to reach western US. And now Panama is getting high revenues from this canal when ships pay to get trough. The reason South Korea was so succeesful is because they aimed on their infrastructure and education, so other countries invested there, like USA. Whit socialism most things are limited.

[unitedkurdistan]

Some of things US supplied USSR with:
Aircraft 14,795
Tanks 7,056
Jeeps 51,503
Trucks 375,883
Motorcycles 35,170
Tractors 8,071
Guns 8,218
Machine guns 131,633
Explosives 345,735 tons
Building equipment valued $10,910,000
Railroad freight cars 11,155
Locomotives 1,981
Cargo ships 90
Submarine hunters 105
Torpedo boats 197
Ship engines 7,784
Food supplies 4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment $1,078,965,000
Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons
Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons
Chemicals 842,000 tons
Cotton 106,893,000 tons
Leather 49,860 tons
Tires 3,786,000
Army boots 15,417,001 pairs

Source:^ Leo T. Crowley, "Lend Lease" in Walter Yust, ed. 10 Eventful Years (1947) 2: 858-60; 1:520