Capitalism is not the only mode of production in existence. We can collectivize production and run it in a planned manner. We can’t do that all at once, but in socialism we can gradually wrest capital from the capitalists and collectively run and plan the economy.
Edit: responding to your edit, socialism is not “welfare in capitalist systems.” Your comment didn’t go over anyone’s heads, you just don’t know what socialism and capitalism are.
Neither system is perfect. Pure capitalism can lead to inequality and under-provided public services, while pure socialism can stifle innovation and create inefficiency. The best-performing countries today typically combine elements of both.
So as anything in life too much of one thing can be bad. It would be nice for everyone to receive free healthcare and higher education in US. I often watch various global news networks. It is odd to see US, Canada, UK all struggling with same issues economically.
UK has 28 million people on assistance out of work. It also has 28 million people employed. So half the UK is paying to support the other half. That is wild to think about.
There’s no such thing as “pure capitalism” or “pure socialism.” Every socialist system has elements of private property, and every capitalist system has elements of public property. A system is capitalist if the large firms and key industries are private, and socialist if the large firms and key industries are public. This is all nonsense on your part, socialist systems have been at the peak of innovation throughout the 20th and 21st centuries.
I’m not sure why you brought up a bunch of capitalist countries failing because of issues systemic to capitalism at the end, it didn’t really help your point. Moreover, there is no “combining the best of both,” the system is determined by what is principle, meaning you can’t be both. Furthermore, I think you’re alluding to the Nordic Countries, but those are capitalist, deteriorating, and depend on imperialism like the rest of the global north.
I think you should do a bit more reading on what socialism and communism even are to begin with before trying to have discussions about them, same with capitalism.
Social programs are not socialism. Welfare exists in both capitalist systems and socialist systems, which is why I explained that what determines the system is which form of production is principle, private or public. The US, Norway, Singapore, etc are capitalist, plain and simple. Countries like Cuba, the PRC, and former USSR are examples of socialism.
Capitalism is not the only mode of production in existence. We can collectivize production and run it in a planned manner. We can’t do that all at once, but in socialism we can gradually wrest capital from the capitalists and collectively run and plan the economy.
Edit: responding to your edit, socialism is not “welfare in capitalist systems.” Your comment didn’t go over anyone’s heads, you just don’t know what socialism and capitalism are.
Neither system is perfect. Pure capitalism can lead to inequality and under-provided public services, while pure socialism can stifle innovation and create inefficiency. The best-performing countries today typically combine elements of both.
So as anything in life too much of one thing can be bad. It would be nice for everyone to receive free healthcare and higher education in US. I often watch various global news networks. It is odd to see US, Canada, UK all struggling with same issues economically.
UK has 28 million people on assistance out of work. It also has 28 million people employed. So half the UK is paying to support the other half. That is wild to think about.
Canada has a housing crisis currently.
There’s no such thing as “pure capitalism” or “pure socialism.” Every socialist system has elements of private property, and every capitalist system has elements of public property. A system is capitalist if the large firms and key industries are private, and socialist if the large firms and key industries are public. This is all nonsense on your part, socialist systems have been at the peak of innovation throughout the 20th and 21st centuries.
I’m not sure why you brought up a bunch of capitalist countries failing because of issues systemic to capitalism at the end, it didn’t really help your point. Moreover, there is no “combining the best of both,” the system is determined by what is principle, meaning you can’t be both. Furthermore, I think you’re alluding to the Nordic Countries, but those are capitalist, deteriorating, and depend on imperialism like the rest of the global north.
I think you should do a bit more reading on what socialism and communism even are to begin with before trying to have discussions about them, same with capitalism.
Hate to break it to you like this but US has both Capitalism and Social programs. Social programs are social security, medicare and public schools.
Social programs are not socialism. Welfare exists in both capitalist systems and socialist systems, which is why I explained that what determines the system is which form of production is principle, private or public. The US, Norway, Singapore, etc are capitalist, plain and simple. Countries like Cuba, the PRC, and former USSR are examples of socialism.
Again, I think you need to do more reading if you want to actually have a conversation about socialism, capitalism, and communism. If you want, I have an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, or this crash course on socialism made by Dessalines is good as well.