- Jun 23, 2008
Communism is economics. Thats one axis on the political compass.but communists don't like religion that much, are you suggesting Jesus was an atheist as well?
Who controls the means of production in your scenario? (this decides if its communist, socialist or capitalist).Interesting.
You've either got autonomous dispersion of wealth or forced distribution of wealth.
Irrespective of who is running it, which of the two above would fall under your definition/views of communism?
Nonsense, all Communist countries seek state control of just about every aspect of your life. Stop romanticizing this satanic system.Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
Capitialism is where capital controls the means of production
Socialism is where the state controls the means of production
Communism is where the people control the means of production
I would agree. Jesus does not come as someone promoting the state. More likely he would be classed as a communist by the definitions above. When he made that fish and bread for all the people in feeding the multitude. He controlled the means of production. He did not charge people for the food and gave it away for free. So technically communist.
Well I suppose I don't really care who controls it. I only care if the transaction is mutual and abides by non-aggression.Who controls the means of production in your scenario? (this decides if its communist, socialist or capitalist).
Capitalism, socialism and communism can all fall under your examples.
Two things are certain (unless you are Amazon), death and taxes. Capitalist and socialist countries do this. Just in different amounts.Well I suppose I don't really care who controls it. I only care if the transaction is mutual and abides by non-aggression.
Most war is fought for resources and the military budgets of capitalist countries in the world are bigger than anything the socialists are doing.Socialism and communism, as per my understanding, cannot abide by non-aggression.
Not my definition. Its in our economics 101 text books.So I was interested in your definition/view to see how it possibly can or where I might be misinterpreting it.
Personally I think you only see one type of socialism, autocratic socialism.Charity, as per OP article, abides by non-aggression.
Socialism/communism doesn't afaik.
I think you need to brush up on your political history. Canada, for a start, is most definitely not a socialist state. As for the Nordic countries, I leave you with these quotes:Finland, Norway, Canada and such.
To the former prime minister, the damage socialism can cause is still fresh in his memory. After all, he was the first prime minister in 60 years to not subscribe to the ideology. And thanks to him, Sweden’s capital gains taxes were cut to 30 percent and corporate taxes to 28 percent.
Bildt also privatized several state-owned industries, deregulated multiple sectors of the economy, allowed people to invest portions of their pension, and introduced school choice policies, improving the country’s education system.
After Bildt, Sweden, which had completely lost its host of entrepreneurs thanks to business taxes that sometimes exceeded the 100 percent mark, once again flourished. Even as Social Democrat successor Ingvar Carlsson took over.
Seeing the wonderful changes just a few years worth of reform had done, Carlsson kept Bildt’s policies in place. And business start-ups rose nearly 25 percent as a result.
As explained by Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen in 2015, countries like his Denmark “[are] far from [socialist planned economies].”
“Denmark is a market economy,” he added. And as demonstrated by Mises in Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow , there’s “no western, capitalistic country in which the conditions of the masses have not improved in an unprecedented way.”
In other words, to claim the successes of Nordic countries are due to socialism is nothing but a lie.
What’s more, the Nordic countries’ social successes predate their high-tax, high-social spending policies. A 2016 paper by the economists Anthony Barnes Atkinson and Jakob Egholt Sogaard shows that most of the progress toward income inequality in Norway and Sweden happened before 1970, at a time when the two countries had low tax regimes and less redistributive policies. Similarly, the Nordic countries’ social successes were more pronounced in those years. Relative to the rest of the world, for example, they had a greater advantage in life span and child mortality in 1970 than they do today. In other words, the Nordic model arose after those countries were already prosperous and egalitarian.
Today, Nordic countries are even moving away from socialism. Although they do still have high levels of taxation, they have introduced free market regulation. Numerous state-owned enterprises have been privatized, taxes have been reduced, and the generosity of welfare systems curtailed. In the largest Nordic nation, Sweden, Prime Minister Stefan Lofven, a social democrat, has promised to cut the 5 percent highest marginal tax rate. The reduction, according to numerous studies, may stimulate the economy enough that the cut won’t even cause tax revenues to fall. That wouldn’t be the case if the Nordic model worked in the way its champions argue.