Political ideology

[Almercenary]

At the moment I'm researching political ideologys and general discussion around it.

Generally just want opinions on different types and why exactly you think said type is better. Don't want flame comments about each one, just a general idea of what people are thinking.

I have a survey here if you have some free time

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1OF4iDpYK5iYW1t1Uqg3GStLIf0RAYIgktPNE6G2-XqM/viewform

[Volbet]

I would consider capitalism vs. communism/socialism a false dichotomy. Most people (and most countries) hold to a healthy mixture of both. 

There are also plenty of different ways both capitalism and communism can be implemented. So, just getting a person to pick one doesn't necessarily tell you about that persons political stance.

 

´Filthy bourgeoisie´ wouldn't refer to a job. The bourgeoisie was the aristocratic ruling class that belong to the 1st estate at the Estate-Generale.

A lot of members of the proletariat (members of the 3rd estate) had high ranking jobs in the private and public sector.

 

I would also argue that whether or not communism would work is a highly theoretical question.

In theory it would work, but every political theory works in theory. 

[Tech_Dreamer]

bottom line is it is just a policy/trick on how to make people(usually large group/not focusing on individuals & the first one is easier & individuals will follow due to pressure) to be  comfortable with an ideology & raising favorable votes with influence & associative conditioning

 

in a nutshell , be careful of the stories you trust, you most probably are a prop for someone else, instead of a free thinking person , which is worse for you to figure out really late in a true unbiased way yourself rather than being told #Politics #UglyMask

[Citadelen]

I was going to answer this, but it's to vague, and you can't go below 16 in ages.

[cc143]

Your questionaire is disingenious, there is no true Capitalist system in existence today in the strict Economic sense, or a truly Socialist system (apart from Cuba)  what we have is mixed Economies.  

 

Furthermore, if you are to distinguish between the 2, better terminology would be a planned economy vs an open economy vs a mixed economy. 

 

The truth of the matter is that no strictly Planned or Open Economy can work in reality since assumptions necessary to their operation do not hold strictly in the real world, we see markets which are far more perfect than others, but there is no market that can really be classified as perfect, so complete deregulation is essentially implausible. 

 

What we generally do wrong, even in the Western World, is that the role of regulation or indeed government would be to: 

 

a. Intervene where there is a sizeable and unquestionable Welfare Cost from lack of intervention, given that that does not violate the self determination of each consumer. 

b. Regulate with the goal to perfect the market so that it can exist efficiently enough on its own. 

 

Example: Taxes on cigarettes, they are there to deter their consumption because they are unhealthy, If information about cigarettes becomes complete, i.e. consumers and producers share the same or somewhat the same information, the price increase is no longer necessary and in fact, if the tax is correct, the price will remain the same when set by the price mechanism, i.e. the tax is removed. 

 

Note that under a Communist/Socialist/Planned Economic System, if it is considered unhealthy, it is not produced, even if it is Demanded, which is economically inefficient. 

 

Also note that theoretically under Communism/Socialism/Planned Economies, growth rates and development rates are much lower, and while income inequality does not exist, median incomes are significantly lower (Empirical fact!). Courtesy of the lack of reward for willingness to incur risk etc and ability to make profits. 

 

A Communist system can work, because it requires that everyone do what the system demands they say. However, it is significantly less efficient because it goes against basic human nature, i.e. more consumption is preferrable, Deminishing Marginal Utility etc. 

 

Under a Capitalist or better Free market system, everyone pursues their own interest and the invisible hand of market forces (Smith,1776) improves Societal Welfare. 

 

In short, no a Socialist system can't work because by every measurable way, the mixed economy system currently followed is more efficient.  

 

[Mug]

14 hours ago, Volbet said:

The bourgeoisie was the aristocratic ruling class

Actually, they're the middle classes and mid-level management. The ruling class is the aristocracy, but I wouldn't describe the bourgeoisie as aristocratic.

[Volbet]

6 minutes ago, Mug said:

Actually, they're the middle classes and mid-level management. The ruling class is the aristocracy, but I wouldn't describe the bourgeoisie as aristocratic.

Hmm, taking the subject into consideration I have handled this ass backwards.

 

I was using ´bourgeoisie´ in the original french context, where it was used to describe members of the 1st estate during the revolution in 1789.

If luse it in a Marxist context you are very much correct. The bourgeoisie would be considered the non-producing members of the workforce, who also tended to be the ones that accumulated wealth. 

 

Again, I don't really know why the political context completly flew over my head, but I stand corrected.