Social capitalism

[Fidelbrand]

Thank you. ;)

Websources & personal opinions on social capitalism are things i am eager to know.

[commie kg]

Do you mean the "soft capitalist" states of Europe? Like Norway, Sweden, and Germany?

It's just capitalism, with a few heavy social programs like nationalized healthcare. It may be a step in the right direction, but it is still capitalism.

[Fidelbrand]

hehe... Actually i have no clue at all, but thanks for your reply..~ ;)

I found this site though, i guess what u said was right..

http://tiss.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de/webroot/s.../Comparison.htm (http://tiss.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de/webroot/sp/spsba01_W98_1/Comparison.htm)

[crazy comie]

commie kg do you mean bourgeoisie socialism

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Social capitalism, what the heck is it?

an oxymoron, obviously.

[Nick Yves]

Actually, it's a pretty decent system for people who don't believe in Communism. Basically it's a capitalist economy with lotttsss of social aid. I like it, but the only problem is I don't think it can work on a large scale, that's why little countries do it. In capitalist economy, i'm sure there would have to always be one country making the main profits, and that's where it gets ugly...

[Don't Change Your Name]

I would say its probably simmilar to social-democracy

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 10:35 PM
Social capitalism, what the heck is it?

an oxymoron, obviously.

Yeh, beggining to realize this point..~

[Fidelbrand]

Thanks Comrades Jetgrind & El Infiltr(A)do for insights..~ :)

[Conghaileach]

Obviously it would appear to be a form of capitalism unlike the lassez faire kind. I'd imagine it's the capitalist states with welfare systems and social security schemes. I agree with El Infiltr(A)do that it's like social democracy.

[Ctisphonics]

Social capitalism, what the heck is it?

an oxymoron, obviously.

Ummm, actually, if you want to get technical, it's the other way around. Communist State is the oxymoron, Social Capitalism is by definition for a Leninst technically a possible form of governemnt:


The state is a special organization of force: it is an organisation of violence for the suppression of some class. What class must the proletariat suppress? Naturally, only the exploiting classes, i.e., the bourgeoisie. The working people need the state only to supress the resistance of the exploiters, and only the proletariat can direct this suppression, can carry it out. Lenin The Communist Manifesto and the State.

It was Marx and Lenin's aim to adventually abolish even the class of the proletariat,and oddly enough, even their roles in the state in order to creat a stateless society. Thus, communism is anti-state. Social Capitalism is an accepted evolutionary step, it's role being permantantly imprinted upon the people at almost the uncouncious level of morals.

Of course, all this communist stuff is a bunch of bull; LONG LIVE AMERICA, DOWN WITH COMMUNISM! :lol:

[Vinny Rafarino]

What exactly is your point. Besides the fact you need a class social in economics Ctisphonics.

[Ctisphonics]

Run that past me again? Either I don't know your lingo or havn't been brainwashed by the same people as you; I'm new here, so my post are still going to make sense, at least till the propaganda overtakes me. :P

[Vinny Rafarino]

By the tone you are writing in, I believe the propaganda already has overtaken you...quite some time ago actually.


I will make this real simple for you since you don't know much about social or capital economics. Please feel free to review all the threads in this forum to give you a bigger picture of the differnces in the platforms.

Social value based economics under conditions where there is still a capitalist international market, the national economy is guaged by total market value of all final goods and services produced in a given year, equal to government and consumer spending added to the total value of exported commodites and the total value of national suplus value invested back into the national economy MINUS the total value of imported goods, the total value of suplus value invested into another nation's economy and the total value of over-supply of goods that are not usable to following fiscal year. The means of production are also nationalised.(goods are produced as needed for the good of the people and state)

In a capitalist market the GDP is calculated by the total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year, equal to total consumer inverstment and government spending, plus the value of exports, minus the value of imports and the total value of over-supply of goods that are not usable to following fiscal year. The means of production are also privitised (goods are produced for profit to independent producers rather than for the good of the people and state)



The main key difference being the ownership of the means of production, therefore "social capitalism" is not possible, as by their very definitions they are each other's antithesis.

[FabFabian]

Are we talking about Mixed economies here????

[Vinny Rafarino]

What exactly are you attempting to say?

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 10:35 PM
Social capitalism, what the heck is it?

an oxymoron, obviously.
Roman Cathiloc is an oxymoron, not social capitalism.

It may still be capitalism but when you "socialize" things you can throw the word "social" in there.

[Ctisphonics]

Okay, I carefully read what you said twice RAF, and have no reason to disagree with what you said, except for this:



The main key difference being the ownership of the means of production, therefore "social capitalism" is not possible, as by their very definitions they are each other's antithesis.

Antithesis perhaps on the basis of ownership, but not with what I was talking about, read my post above. Communist State is the Oxymoron.

(P.S. Roman Catholic is not a oxymoron. Byzantine Catholic on the other hand IS.
Catholic=Universal, Roman signifies which holy see it is centered in. The Orthodox faiths also have rival ones (though during the first thousand years they were united till the Catholics broke off) in Constantinople (Istanbul), Moscow, Antioch, ect. Byzantine signifies the Eastern Roman Empire, which would be under the Auspices of the Greek Patriach and not the Roman Pope. But you know who the middle ages were, Crusades against anything that moved, now thier are Greeks under a latin pope, of all things!)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Antithesis perhaps on the basis of ownership, but not with what I was talking about, read my post above. Communist State is the Oxymoron


I agree friend, communist state is indeed an oxymoron. However we were talking about a socialist state.


The means of production was all I was referring to friend. When I wrote that I thought to myself after the fact it may be a bit unclear. I was correct in my suspicions. I hope this clears it up for you.

[Yevgraf]

Speaking of oxymorons, I was reading a biography of Tony Blair the other day and apparantly the yankee-loving imperialist considers himself to be a "christian socialist".
Just thought I'd share that with everyone.

[Pingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 07:21 AM
Speaking of oxymorons, I was reading a biography of Tony Blair the other day and apparantly the yankee-loving imperialist considers himself to be a "christian socialist".
Just thought I'd share that with everyone.
f*ck blair :P

[FabFabian]

Toady Blair is a Christian Socialist??? It never fails to amaze me how self righteous and pompous that dickhead is. :rolleyes:

[Ctisphonics]

Tony seems all right to me, true, I wouldn't elect him as a official in the US, but he has his streanghts, and when people watch you like a hawk, it forces you to constantly re-evaluate yourself, elininating your weaknesses. He's taking a lot of hits now, but his views will undoubtedly have a hajor impact on international politics for the next 50-100 years. He may just very well be the only reason why the US is even paying attention to what the Europeans are saying, America very soon will have NO REASON to be in NATO, and we are intering into a period where were eliminating many of our Transatlantic tires and bringing them back down to the pre-cold war/world war two level (though it will never go ALL THE WAY BACK DOWN.) Tony is the ONLY reason why were even listening to the French and Germans (or the Franco-Germs as I like to call them)