Pros and cons of

1) Communism
2) Capitalism
3) Socialism
4) Any other related ism's.

In short 3-4 bullet points.  I googled and get confused reading 5 paragraphs worth just for economic definitions, not even the other stuff. So not only relating to economics, but law and order also. 

The reason why I ask is that many videos I see about Antifa, is that they support communism (Che Gueva) and socialism.

This dead horse has been beaten many, many times in other threads here.

Capitalism is moral -- offers the freedom to participate or not and allows producers to keep what they produce.

Socialism is immoral -- demands everyone participates and dictates how. Doesn't believe in personal property rights.

Communism is the final state when all countries adopt Socialism.

Theres a hawaii socialist group. I was thinking about attending a meeting to see what they do.  Not sure if I'll get beat up though.

Sent from my LG-H830 using Tapatalk

If you're heading to NYC, check for current schedules of

Socialist Karaoke

https://www.facebook.com/events/1675879306055147

are you writing a paper?

- Capitalism with Socialist regulations can work.  (Think Unions, Minimum Wage, health care contributions, Social Security, Anti-trust no monopolies, etc.)
- Socialism with Capitalist regulations can work.  (Think innovation and hardest working make the most. Owner of company makes scrips, etc.)
- Communism doesn't work. ( People aren't wired that way. Everyone does unequal jobs and gets equal benefit) ( China is not Communist)

My opinion is that none of them work in their pure form.

Pros and cons of

1) Communism
2) Capitalism
3) Socialism
4) Any other related ism's.

In short 3-4 bullet points.  I googled and get confused reading 5 paragraphs worth just for economic definitions, not even the other stuff. So not only relating to economics, but law and order also. 

The reason why I ask is that many videos I see about Antifa, is that they support communism (Che Gueva) and socialism.

watch prager u videos...

Capitalism works.

Socialism only works for those in power.

Communism has never existed, only socialist countries that claimed to be communist.

Would it be fair to say that countries with a dictator are socialist?  N. Korea, Cuba, etc...

And Star Trek would be socialism also?  No money, everyone works for the greater good (does their part)?

Not writing a paper, but on social media, there are those who want socialism vs. capitalism.  And doesn't Bernie want socialism?

Thanks for the short and sweet answers.  Don't got time to read pages of info.

I don't think there is a short answer for both.
I surmise those that want socialism from the comfort of a free society like ours are caught in the same situation as you. They THINK it may work but may not have read enough to make a good decision. It takes some reading, some reflecting to understand the systems of government. If it only took a few bullet points, life would be so much easier.

Social media is not a good source for history. It gets distorted and manipulated for LIKES and popularity.

Socialism has shown to offer benefits in countries with very small populations, a good location for trade with others, and a foundation of infrastructure and wealth generated BEFORE they shifted to Socialism.

Most of the examples being touted as successful Socialist economies are smaller than California in population. Easier to control a smaller country. Supplies have less demand on them, so it's easier for the government-planned production & trade to keep up.

Over time though, the chances of a natural or man-made disaster, economic depression, war among trade partners, or widespread disease could deplete resources beyond their ability to recover. That's when the misery starts. Only the government leaders will not feel the negative impacts.

While Socialism does tend to lean toward a dictatorial or similar government, there have been many countries under dictators with other than Socialist economies.  Private property rights is the #1 indicator.  Argentina moved toward socialism after taking control of their industries from England. Peron paid off their external debt, improved the economy, had full employment, and so on. The problem with having a period of success is you get careless. They did what we did before the housing bubble burst.  Made stupid decisions and over spent until they caused the financial collapse of the nation.  After Peron went into exile in Spain, the regime that replaced him became much more of a dictatorship, but fought against factions pushing to establish socialism.

- Capitalism with Socialist regulations can work.  (Think Unions, Minimum Wage, health care contributions, Social Security, Anti-trust no monopolies, etc.)
- Socialism with Capitalist regulations can work.  (Think innovation and hardest working make the most. Owner of company makes scrips, etc.)
- Communism doesn't work. ( People aren't wired that way. Everyone does unequal jobs and gets equal benefit) ( China is not Communist)

My opinion is that none of them work in their pure form.

Au contra ire my Dear Dogman.

   Socialism in it's PURE FORM would work. 
Unfortunately, that means EVERYONE would do EXACTLY what they were SUPPOSED to do having NO conflict with any other. 
Purely Utopian    (unless we were all on a steady diet of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide ) 
)

Most of the examples being touted as successful Socialist economies are smaller than California in population. Easier to control a smaller country. Supplies have less demand on them, so it's easier for the government-planned production & trade to keep up.

Agree. I’m sick and tired (figuratively) of people saying that if free healthcare can work in Canada, then why can’t we have it here. What they don’t realize is that there are more Californians than there are Canadians so it’s easier for Canada to manage. Plus I personally know that Canadian healthcare sucks.

I think it basically impossible to summarize those all in just a few bullet points. For example, socialism can exist in so many different forms. We have a level of socialism in this country but it is very different than some other socialist countries. The same with capitalism as well which isn't really a form of government like socialism can be.

I think your request could be better answered with a more narrow set of parameters.


Maybe communism would be easier to define and list pros and cons so simply.

Communism is the most effective method of turning millions of perfectly functional human beings into fertilizer. It fails for reasons strikingly similar to capitalism. The privileged classes get together and conspire to form rackets. The difference is communism is based around the glorious revolution aka a never ending cycle purges and bloodbaths. Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette, right comrade?

When people talk about free markets keep in mind that a free market has never existed, because the first job of capital is to destroy the competition and create a racket. All this talk of capitalism being self correcting is intellectual laziness. We almost had a socialist revolution after the stock market crash of the 30s but FDR basically gave the wealthy class a choice to give up some of their money if they wanted to keep their lives once the angry mobs started forming. He saved capitalism by installing socialist stop gaps that have slowly been eroding ever since with predictable consequences.

Unregulated Capitalism always destroys itself because it has no internal directives regarding the overall heath of humanity or the environment. The only goal is short term profit by burning through resources as quickly as possible regardless of what’s best for the herd or the planet, and ends up shitting where it eats and eating it’s seed corn.

I don’t know of any 100 percent socialist countries either. Keep in mind Venezuela is being targeted by the cia and giant oil companies who are terrified of the idea of the people being in the collective control of their own resources instead of a handful of billionaires.

Btw have you ever looked up the amounts of subsidies that the energy companies in this country recieve? Those are the real socialist welfare queens.

I've been reading into Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and his goal to a pure form of communism.  1 to 2 million people died, 1 in 4 Cambodians.  Unlike communist countries, I feel he truly believed in what he was doing  and not doing it for the supreme power.  His utopia involved ditching all the modern conveniences and going back to a primitive agricultural form of society like going 3,000 years back in time.  No medicine, technology, currency, etc.  Everyone is the same.  No one is smarter than the other and they are re-educated in the Pol Pot way.  Love is not allowed because it's an individual emotion.  If you loved someone not issued by the government, then you were executed.  If you were dying of starvation and picked an apple off the tree you'd be executed because you are putting yourself above everyone else.

The only good thing I see is they wanted to level the playing field where all wealth and status were equal so there were no poor people nor rich.  What happens in reality is everything crashes down and everyone is equal to the point of struggling to survive.

Communism goes against our basic instincts to try and succeed on our own and be unique.  It takes brutal punishment to try and overcome that instinct.

To me, extreme fascism (Hitler) and extreme Communism (Stalin) produce similar atrocities even though they are completely opposites in the political spectrum.

The only good thing that came out of Pol Pot. Classic Dead Kennedys...

To me, extreme fascism (Hitler) and extreme Communism (Stalin) produce similar atrocities even though they are completely opposites in the political spectrum.

shouldn't it be extreme fascism (trump)?

shouldn't it be extreme fascism (trump)?

No, you're thinking about all of the people that Hillary has killed. As far as we know, Trump hasn't killed anyone directly but has made plans to shoot someone in Times Square.