https://sccbesme-humanidade.blogspot.com/2019/ ( Leia todo o artigo)
https://palacazgrandesartigos.blogspot.com/2014/10/salvemos-o-capitalismo-do-caos-reinante.html
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-middle-ground-between-capitalism-and-communism (*)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIe_LBDEMsw
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2017/01/09/review-why-president-obama-reformed-wall-street-and-what-reform-has-accomplished
- Wall Street Reform
Two -Years Later: Reforming the System and Protecting American Consumers
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v1n3/thompson.html
SOCIAL – SUSTENTABILIDADE NOS NEGÓCIOS
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/business-definition-operational-sustainability-25509.html
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the´middle-ground-between-capitalism-andcommunism
It sounds like a simple question!
First off, the “third way” (fascism) isn’t a halfway point between capitalism and communism. Fascism exists on a different axis. No pun intended.
Second, let’s be clear that communism is not the same as state capitalism. State capitalism under a single party tyranny is what the Soviet Union was; the Soviet Union never established communism, they just said they wanted to do that someday. Communism would be where there is no government and working people share in everything. And let’s also be clear that pure capitalism has never happened, either. Basically, both represent very hard to accomplish ideals.
A balance between capitalism (rule by capital) and communism (a worker’s paradise) would be democratic socialism — basically the position of Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The power of owners of capital would be balanced against the power of working class people. Capitalists would still exist under democratic socialism, they would just be a lot less wealthy relative to working people and a lot less powerful.
So, to return to the issue of fascism, the capitalism vs. communism axis has to do with the power of workers vs. the power of capitalists (owners of the means of production). Fascism may sometimes pretend to care about this relationship, but that’s really a deception to get your attention. In truth, fascism is about enforcing a traditional hierarchy, and instead of capitalists, it is more about land ownership (land is a significantly different from capital), race, gender/sexuality, and religion. The fact that fascists are working on a different conceptual axis from everyone else (because everyone else long ago rejected racism, sexism, theocracy, etc.) means that the whole idea of left and right can get really confusing. In the US, the Democrats are near-right on the capitalism-communism axis, yet from the Republican perspective, the Democrats are “far left” because the Democrats so clearly oppose the traditional hierarchies that Republicans feel must rule. Republicans love capitalism when the “right” people own the capital, and hate capitalism when the “wrong” people own the capital; they have no coherent ideological relationship to capitalism.
Let me expand on the “land ownership” vs. “capital ownership” issue. Clearly, land can be used to produce — it is a “means of production” for food and other resources. From the fascist perspective, though, the productive potential of land isn’t what matters. Instead, they see ownership of land as giving a person authority and will suggest that people who don’t own land shouldn’t be able to vote and/or “have no skin in the game”. They also tend to fabricate a narrative to establish an historical reason for why the land belongs to their preferred group. The popular fascist chant of “blood and soil” is about giving the fascist’s preferred ethnic group total authority over a geographical area.
From a capitalist perspective, land ownership isn’t that important because, though the land sort of produces resources, it is really the machinery that allows those resources to be produced; the machinery is the capital, not the land.
I think its called social democracy as we see in most Western countries. Government is responsible for maintaining the infrastructure, defending the nation, and maintaining a safety net for those who find themselves unemployed or disabled. Capitalism is responsible for employing the masses and producing the goods and services needed for the masses. It seems to work fairly well most of the time.
Mussolini suggested the third way was fascism, the middle way. Ownership is private, but control is with the state. No commercial action can take place where it does not match to government policy. So, you may innovate as an entrepreneur, but only where the government sees a benefit and allows your actions via license as a benefit to the state and support of state policies.
This matches the behavioral pattern in Fascist Italy, Germany, Spain, Argentina all the way through Iraq under Hussein.
They’re called mixed economies that are well regulated.
The thing is they’re flexible.
Eh? The UK under the Gordon Brown regime had GDP reliant on the public sector approaching 50% while East Germany never exceeded 30%.
So you have a bit of both.
You have socialist policies to do the unprofitable things that pure capitalism will handle poorly an example being Public goods , there is no profit in street lighting for instance.
You have TIGHTLY controled capitalism which doesn’t get the opportunity to co-opt government policies and become crony.
Well, the US today is that middle ground.
The US Government controlled about 2% of the GDP c. 1900. That was basically a 98% Capitalistic society.
The Politburo of the USSR controlled about 75% of the GDP of the Soviet Union c. 1970. The more extreme times, e.g., Mao’s China and Stalinist USSR, were characterized by more like 85% of the GDP controlled centrally, as does North Korea today.
The US Government presently controls about 40% of the US GDP. This degree of central planning is about midway between the two more defined endpoints the world has witnessed.
So the problem with communism is it is not practical. The problem with capitalism is it can be very unfair. Capitalism should not be allowed to become - money rules and decides what happens because it is unfair. Money cannot decide everything.
This is possible when people come together f...
Yes, Germany would be a good example of “social market Economy “ which basically means that companies are privately owned and competing, but the Gouvernement lays down a set of ground rules and will intervene If for example a company is trying to establish a Monopoly or is using short term predatory pricing to put competition out of Business by simply beeing able to Take losses for a longer time
Anarcho-syndicalism I think. In that hybrid system, a collective or syndicate could be run either for the public good or for profit. Contrary to what some uneducated armchair political economists think, communism is not an oppressive economic system or a pipe dream. There has never been any large-scale implementation of communism in the modern world, but small groups have practiced some form of communism.
Basically every country in the world today.
Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production.
Just about every country in the world has a government that owns some aspect of that economy’s means of production.
In my view, if we are going to classify nations as “capitalist” or “socialist”, we should do so by looking at the GDP. If more than 50% of that comes from state-owned enterprises, it is socialist. If less than 50% comes from state-owned enterprises, it is capitalist. That is the only meaningful way of using these words to classify countries in today’s world.
What you refer to as a “third way”, something between capitalism and socialism is what FDR put in place. I don’t know if it has an “-ism”, but it was smart, pragmatic and it worked. Maybe we should call it “American exceptionalism”. (Yes, I know that term is used for something else, but not accurately.) Too bad the republicans have destroyed that balance. Now we have to start all over again building an economy that works for everyone.
Yes, but currently there is just one working model, a Chinese one, god for them but is not applicable on the west.
Social democracy. A democracy with some socialist type social programs. Examples include most of Scandinavia, or the universal healthcare programs in most of Europe, and things like generous unemployment programs, job training, parental leave, child care, that are available in many European countries.
It’s called “socialdemocracy”, and it is practiced in many European countries, especially the Nordic - with great success.
Read more here: Why Scandinavia can teach us a thing or two about surviving a recession
Corporatism….Russia/China. Not a good thing but in my opinion where we are headed. The Pols who are usually incompetent except at sheep herding…demagoguery …need the imaginative and entrepreneurial. But they, the thugs, the Party, will have the guns and gulags.
“What is the middle ground between capitalism and communism?”
There are many words for this. The most specific is “Interventionism”.
https://mises.org/library/critique-interventionism
https://mises.org/library/interventionism-economic-analysis
However, a more common name is “Fascism”. The so-called “Third Way”. Titular private property, but only under tight government regulation.
The middle ground between Capitalism and Communism is:
- communists are allowed to (are free to) set up their communes on private land they buy & own in common, and
- are free to persuade anyone they can to join them,
- within otherwise free-market capitalist nations.
Of course, communists will be prohibited from using force or coercion to keep anyone from leaving their communes.
Third Way, which is a fascist political ideology. Not all fascists are the supporters of it, only some; Pinochet was a free market fascist, for example.
Democratic socialism.
I’m far left but apart from Basics of life. Free market capitalism is fine by me.
Communism never has never really existed. In an alternate Universe the Soviets could have got China to make cheap goods for the Soviet population as they had money and Socialists main objective is 100% employment.
I’m not a huge fan of communism or capitalism in a modern era with Automation and industrialisation. Both systems will fail as they both rely on employment in some way.
There is a dualistic system, with capitalism and collectivism working in opposition. Many systems use push-pull mechanisms of opposing forces. Either of these economic systems in isolation will harm people. Making them compete is efficient, self-regulating and safer.
Yep: social democracy. Regulated capitalism for the common good. Look it up; it’s what the Nordic countries use.
According to Lenin it was “socialism”.
That was the way to alter the habits of people who might one day be ready for communism.
It was a half way point between the past of capitalism and aristocracy and the goal of egality and equality which was hoped to be the future.
This is why most countries have embraced substantial socialism. Even the USA has a great many socialist policies. A country cannot run without them.
The capitalism is in part balanced by socialism.
Socialism with Chinese characteristics
A mixed economy of one-third each capitalism, socialism, communism.
In the U.S. the private sector makes up about 2/3rds of the economy and the government makes up about 1/3rd of the economy. That’s the middle ground.
Better for whom? I'm sure Stalin much preferred being a communist dictator over whatever prospects he would have had in a free country. (A public school teacher?)
But you do get a sense of how average people think, if you look at the few cases where we had close proximity of communist and capitalist states, e.g., East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Cuba and the United States. You see people risk their lives to escape communism and reach capitalism, but almost never see someone wanting to go in the other direction.
There is no “middle ground.” The productive assets are either privately owned or public ally owned. If private ownership predominates, it’s capitalism. Capitalism can be awful (Russia), bad (US), or sort of OK (Western Europe). But even OK capitalism is still capitalism, not a “middle ground.”
Really? What is the middle ground between something that does exist and a fantasy? What is the middle ground between working for a living and relying on Santa Claus with his elves for satisfying your needs?
NO NO NO NO
Capitalism is good
Communism is pure evil
Good and evil should NEVER mix, never compromise
Evil must be defeated
Any modern Scandinavian nation.
Socialism. Socialism is an economic system where land, capital, and businesses are cooperatively owned and democratically run either by their employees or by the members of the community in which they operate.
No known ’middle ground.’ However, you could use the term ”social capitalism” where the two rigidly overlap.
If one has to see system in between, I think that exists in china today as their economy is more capitalist and are ruling by a communist regime.
Capitalism is not the opposite of communism.
Traditionally, socialism is said to be midway on a continuum between market economies and command economies.
Ultimately, there isn’t any, anymore than there is a middle ground between food and poison or between life and death. In all these cases, it is only death that will win.
There is no middle ground. “In any compromise between food and poison, poison will always win.” — Ayn Rand
Any European country, Canada and even the USA all have hybrid systems with capitalist and socialist characteristics
A bog. Both systems are defective. They are based on theories which are fundamentally flawed, which is why they lead to bad outcomes. Communism impoverished nearly everyone and is only sustained by tyranny.
Capitalism makes a few people very wealthy, leaves some people very poor and enables the majority to enjoy a decent standard only by getting into life long debt. It lurches from crisis to crisis in a series of booms and busts.
A blend of the two does not get rid of these inherent flaws.
There is none. There's no such thing as a ‘mixed economy’. You either have a Market economy, or no economy. Welfare states are market economies. Intervention hampers the market economy but, unless it's so expansive it falsifies the property titles and prices, it's still a market economy.
There is no middle ground. There is an alternative to unfettered capitalism though (regulated capitalism).
The middle ground between capitalism and communism is often referred to as social democracy or democratic socialism. Social democracy promotes a mixed economy where both private enterprise and government intervention coexist. It emphasizes regulated markets, social welfare programs, and a strong emphasis on income redistribution to achieve a more equitable society. This approach combines the principles of individual freedom and initiative found in capitalism with the notion of social justice and collective responsibility found in communism.
I don´t think there is one
In capitalism, production is to maximise profits for a private owner. People have to compete for jobs, companies compete for clientele
In communism, production is done to produce what the people need, and the workers of the factory are also its owners. In fullblown communism, money and barter can be abolished
The middle ground between capitalism and communism is a mixed economy. In a mixed economy, the government plays a role in regulating the market to ensure fair competition and protect consumers, but private enterprise is still allowed to operate and make profits. This system aims to provide the benefits of both capitalism and communism while avoiding their drawbacks.
It's not capitalism and communism that is the dichotomy. It is communism and democracy. Communism does not allow the people to make decisions, only the state which inevitably makes decisions in its own interests, never willingly giving up power or comfort for the ruling elites. Democracy is flexible enough to use capitalism (the right) while still accommodating socially constructive systems (the left).
NO
Capitalism is where the production distribution and exchange is privately owned and where capital directs the mode of production . Capitalism exists under liberal democracys where state/govt protects the individual rights including private property the basis of capitalism
Communism is where there is workers emancipation where there is no class no state and no money. this means no capitalist and private property.
These are clearly incompatible
Social Democracy, with a Socialist government that is a democracy and provides a social safety net, while the economy a regulate capitalist market.
There is none communism in any form will grow like cancer until it crushed the economy. Capitalism is self correcting by people choosing to avoid poor businesses and forcing them to change or fail.
ABSOLUTISM.
The people do not consent to their government under either one.
Elections are not consent, which implies the power of citizens to directly overrule their government.
They are ultimatums.
Personally, I don’t think that Capitalism is a political concept but more of a system of economic management - Oxford University defines it as “investing money to make more money”. Communism is however a social political concept, the antithesis of which is Classical or Whig Liberalism.
NO…Socialism is the economic platform that opposes the Private Ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange for goods.
Social Programs are not Socialist….they are created by Democrats who believe Capitalism needs to be Regulated to protect the Working Class.
Nothing. Absolutely nothing! So called mixed economy, social democracy, 21st Century Socialism are form of capitalism!
Difference between the two is basic & contradictory: Capitalism grows on Private Property, Communism starts on demolition of Private Property and grows on Social Wealth!
Further, Capitalism survives on class, where as Communism annihilates class and is a classless society!
No comments:
Post a Comment