Virtuoso, need some help

[Outlaw Immortal]

From reading your responses daily I've concluded you're quite educated in politics, though I might have some different views here or there, that doesn't change the fact that you are a smart person.

Well my question is, would you be able to give a brief definition followed by example, and also try and compare the differences for the following:

Capitalism
Communism
Socialism
Marxism
Nationalism
Social democracy

The reason why I'm asking you this, is not because i don't know the definitions of them, its pretty funny, cause I've read about each one quite in depth, and the other day I was debating with someone about different forms of governments and the pros and cons. So i just need a peace of mind from you if you can briefly outline the definition, also givin pros/cons, and comparisons.

I seriously would appreciate this much so, anyways man take your time on it, thanks.

[Elevz]

Shit. That's one enormous question I wouldn't dare answering since you're so specifically addressing Virtuoso, and also because you say you're well informed already. I'm curious as for how Virtuoso would define the difference between communism, marxism and socialism, let alone being able to outline social democracy.

[Jip]

i don't know if you've noticed but politicians are idiots, and the people who read internet articles and choose their favorite policy from the lot and slam the rest because the last article they just read doesn't really look at all the facts in perspective isn't the person you should ask for definitions on government policies and such

i'm not talking about virtuoso, although he may fall into that category, hes in the "i think they are out to get us" group as well, somewhere inbetween

but then again, what do i know, ive never heard of "Marxism"

just don't always believe things you read on the internet, the government may have put it there to trick you

[AndrE16686]

i don't know if you've noticed but dude wants Virtuoso to do his homework. 

[Elevz]

i don't know if you've noticed but politicians are idiots, and the people who read internet articles and choose their favorite policy from the lot and slam the rest because the last article they just read doesn't really look at all the facts in perspective isn't the person you should ask for definitions on government policies and such

i'm not talking about virtuoso, although he may fall into that category, hes in the "i think they are out to get us" group as well, somewhere inbetween

but then again, what do i know, ive never heard of "Marxism"

just don't always believe things you read on the internet, the government may have put it there to trick you

You do realise that behind every political stance, there's a philosophy on mankind and life on a whole, right? In other words, I believe this was a purely theoretical question, which has little to do with the actions of politicians, let alone any background articles being written on them. Virtuoso's "I think they're out to get us!" views have little to do with these philosophies backing up life!

Karl Marx is the main founder of communism, but his personal philosophy is marxism. At the same time, socialism is like a 'watered down' version of communism. That should tell you something about how complicated Outlaw Immortal's question actually is, not even looking at the practical appliance.

[Outlaw Immortal]

Shit. That's one enormous question I wouldn't dare answering since you're so specifically addressing Virtuoso, and also because you say you're well informed already. I'm curious as for how Virtuoso would define the difference between communism, marxism and socialism, let alone being able to outline social democracy.

LOL, the only reason why i asked virtuoso is because ive seen alot of the posters in train of thought section, and I realised im gonna get a bias response, or an incorrect response from some arrogant person who wants to be smart, i.e. real american.

But you seem pretty educated and articulate, you can give the question a shot by all means i got no problem with that, ill be happy if you do, but theres only one thing i ask of you, whether you are conservative or liberal, just stick to the facts without involving your own political opinion.

Props man, holla back

[Elevz]

Capitalism
A political-economical system which grants every individual freedom of enterprise and which values private possessions and factors of production a great deal. Capitalism basically holds upon the belief that market prices balance themselves out: that which is rare and wanted goes to those who are willing to pay the most, while the common becomes rather cheap. It's all about what people are willing to offer in exchange. This also balances out life: people who make themselves (or are) valuable to others get more in exchange for their work, and thus according to capitalists the riches are rewarded to those who deserve/earn it. In a capitalist world, every man is completely responsible for his own success (or failure at that).

Communism
A political philosophy holding on to the strength of the community. Communism aims for a society in which all individuals are equal; working for a common goal. Therefore, communism abandons private possessions: everything is owned by the state; people work for the state, and the state takes care of its peoples needs. This requires a huge bureaucratic system and a strong, influential government in order to make the country run smoothly. Communism tends to look at the needs of the community first, and then at the individual's needs second, as opposed to capitalist beliefs.

Socialism
As with the explanation for communism, socialism aims to create a classless state. Socialism aims to regulate incomes, and aims for equality within society, however not necessarily through common ownership. Socialism basically a the collective name of a number of movements, which includes the many different interpretations of communism. It's hard to really outline what socialism is, and what isn't.

Marxism
Marxism is the collective name for the political beliefs and practices extracted from the writings of Karl Marx (most commonly "Das Kapital" and "The Communist Manifesto," the latter which he wrote with Friedrich Engels). Through their visions on the nature of mankind, Marx and Engels first started the whole socialist movement.
Most of the philosophies derived from marxism believe in the importance of the working class, and the virtuosity of the aim to make everyones life as 'fair' as possible by giving every person an equal share. It fights the power of the elite, and condemns capitalism.

Nationalism
Not so much a rational philosophy, but more a social doctrine, nationalism is the belief which causes people to prefer ones own country or nation over another. It tends to create unity within the nation, but at the same time a strong friction towards other nations, as well as a feeling of superiority. Links with fascism, chauvinism, racism...

Social democracy
Socialist movement which rejects the idea of a socialist revolution: social democracy aims to achieve equality through a welfare state, including social security and welfare facilities. The democratic aspect means that social democracy has a more differentiated approach than other types of socialism.

[Narrator]

Good definitions, Eleven 2 Three, but I must add some of my own observations to yours:

Socialism
As with the explanation for communism, socialism aims to create a classless state. Socialism aims to regulate incomes, and aims for equality within society, however not necessarily through common ownership. Socialism basically a the collective name of a number of movements, which includes the many different interpretations of communism. It's hard to really outline what socialism is, and what isn't.

I think that broadly speaking, socialism can be used to refer to just about any system which aims to create a more egalitarian society through re-distribution of income, from social democrats (remember, Socialist International is all social democratic parties) to communists, and everything in between those.  I don't, however, think that American Democrats fit this qualification, as their primary goal is essentially to dress up capitalism with minor socialist elements without really attempting any widespread re-distribution of wealth.

Nationalism
Not so much a rational philosophy, but more a social doctrine, nationalism is the belief which causes people to prefer ones own country or nation over another. It tends to create unity within the nation, but at the same time a strong friction towards other nations, as well as a feeling of superiority. Links with fascism, chauvinism, racism...

That's a bit too narrow a definition of nationalism - what you said describes right-wing/xenophobic/extremist nationalism (i.e. that of the British National Party or French National Front).  There are also forms of nationalism which are based soley on the premise of achieving national sovereignty - usually in countries where the population believes themselves to be under oppression from foreign rulers - and which simultaneously embrace socialism and even Marxism or Maoism.  The Palestine Liberation Organization (before they became the PA), the Basque Fatherland and Liberty, the Provisional Irish Republican Army, and the Polisario Front are all examples of nationalistic groups that are also leftist in their ideologies.

[virtuoso]

Ha I am flattered that you would ask me specifically I won't even dignify jip's post with a response after all, you don't know history and you don't know politics not even a basic grasp of it. As for eleven,  that was a really good summary but I would encourage you outlaw to read the communist manifesto, in fact if you read the communist manifesto it says one thing but stands for something completely different. In truth the major global banks financed both the communist movement and capitalism, what this reveals about communism and even if you contemplate the very message which is conveyed in the communist manifesto, is that far from wanting people to prosper, it is a document whose primary purpose is to get people to embrace all ideals of a world government, in fact it states that it's long term aim to get rid of sovereignty, nationality and and any other borders. Any pretence of them wanting some kind of utopian existence is blown away by the manifestos message of the family unit being the problem in society and the only way of solving this problem is to put everyone under the control of the communist state.

It pulls no punches in attacking the family unit and seems to despise marriage. However it's more devious than simply attacking on a base level because it relies upon the strategic tactic of divide and conquer, this is a document aimed at the so called working class and directs them towards who their enemy should be "the bourgeoise" aka the middle class, the middle class need to be ousted in order for the working class to prevail is basically the idea presented. However this is both a con and a very slick means of keeping the population at each others throats. The reality is the middle class are the only group with any independent wealth and thus are better able to fight the type of authoritarian rule which goes hand in hand with communism. The irony which people choose to either overlook or don't consciously realise, is that there is a very tiny group of elites with the real wealth, the same elites who funded the russian revolution to begin with. Communism paints the ideal that everyone will share the wealth and in a twisted sense it's true the middle class become just as poor as the working class but essentially it's a transfer of wealth into even smaller hands.

Of course communism has to go hand in hand with big government i.e. huge beaurocracies are created which oversee and ensure that the communist ideals are upheld. However let's assume that we are talking about a utopian society, the very models of beaurocracy ensure that every possible part of life is so controlled that everything is so inefficient because of the fact that every decision passes through so many layers and the people under a communist regime have to accept that privacy does not exist, you essentially submit to the will of the government and as for people who resist this, well you might wish to look at what happened in russia, or what happened under mao sea tungs reign or in fact countless other communist dictatorships. Although  we don't hear too much about China besides the occasional reports which are approved for a televised western audience. Living in China must be an absolutely torrid existence for any of us but for the average chinese person, they are so oblivious to their own enslavement that they do not see their shackles.

However it's at this point where the lines between capitalism and communism become increasingly blurred because despite the good defintiion of what capitalism is, in reality it has adopted a different form. We live under capitalism but it is not the kind of free capitalism we have been taught but rather a corporate capitalism which has allowed for gigantic corporations to be formed who once they gained a stranglehold of the market formed cartels who ensure that no significant new competition can ever challenge their dominance of the market, it's an impossible barrier to entry to hurde. In fact in every major market not only do we see these oligopoly's in every major market, but worst still these corporations are rampantly buying out competiton in other markets. In fact it has to got the stage now, where corporation wield so much power, the actual members who govern the supposed government have become largely superfluous as long as the line they follow is conducive with what big business wants to hear. A practical example of this, is the call for open borders, i.e. unlimited immigration which is dressed up as freedom, dressed up as giving the poor a chance but ask yourself who ultimately benefits from a mass flood of immigrants and it's big business because labour supply will drive down the wages thus reducing the wealth of the people and again wiping out the middle classes.

In fact there are numerous similarities between communism and corporate capitalism, which underlines the fact that essentially they are both mechanisms of control sprouting from the same tree but growing off different branches. This is a really complex subject and there are numerous discreptancies, because some forms of nationalism are not always a bad thing and likewise privatisation can be for the benefit of people but essentially we have elites who brag about their control of the world, elites who brag about their desire to dismantle soverign nations and and elites whose driving ideology can never be synonymous with wanting to live in a free society. Yet I am continuously called a conspiracy theorist despite the fact that in leo strauss books, brizienski books, david rockefeller "memoirs" and countless other books they will talk openly about it, but then employ ad hominem attacks which are then disseminated through the media to ridicule and demonise people who speak about what they write. I recommend you listen to Aldous Huxley gleefully addressing the watching audience at UC Berkeley and unashamedly teling them that the 1984 style of control "terroristic" is not feasible in the long term and that he believes that the Brave New World approach is more feasible in the long term.

I guess a world government would not be as shocking a prospect were it not for the fact that they are so hell bent on destroying every principle which has allowed the west to proclaim itself to be a free society. I guess in a sense this is not a conspiracy, more an agenda, they believe that the only means of maintaining order in society is to adopt an authoritarian stance. Another practical example, gordon brown is proposing that the UK detain terror suspects without charge for 56 days, what we are basically looking at is internment and what internment does is turn the innocent until proven guilty declaration upside down and kicked it into orbit. Now you are guilty until the authorities say otherwise. Sorry I did not respond earlier but I hope this answers some of your questions, between me and the other contributions that have been made on this threat, I am sure at the very least it has given you a lot to think about. 

Oh by the way I did chat to some supports who belonged to the socialist party, their manifesto was basically focused on local issues and they did seem like good people and even they were open enough to admit that socialism is just communism, it's just been rebranded to give it a more acceptable face in the mainstream. Furthermore when I raised the issue of the major banks financing the very same movements which created communism and capitalism, there was no denying it, bizarrely enough one of the guys shrugged his shoulders and said but we can't except a revolution.

[Outlaw Immortal]

Ay guys, id like to you thank you all alot Eleven Two Three and Foday-muh'fuckin-Sankoh bitch! very much for that. Virtuoso i really appreciate you takin the time out of your day for that response, alot of them seem clearer, and ill be doin a bit more reading since i borrowed this political philosophy book and now can analyse concepts better and more thoroughly, thank you very much man.

Lastly id like to conclude, 'Real American' is going to burn in hell and live constant cycles of his childhood bullies and abusers redistributing their traumatic torture on him.

That was random..but he deserves it for the shit he posts, anyways seriously thanks alot guys for the help