Since economic political policies have an impact on the economic system, and while they're not the same thing; I don't think one can completely divorce the two in that respect. So no, I wouldn't agree we are going off-topic

While I don't completely disagree, I don't agree that China as far as it's political system is concerned is "Capitalist". However and in any case, I would agree for the most part that it's economic system is a strange mix of both Communism and Capitalism, but more so Communism - although I think you're right about it's moving more towards Capitalism. It's also worth noting that the ruling political party of China is indeed called "Communist Party of China (CPC)".

In any case, I found an article about this very question that might interest you.

Not entirely sure about taxing income being "tantamount to slavery/sin", but each to their own.

My point basically was that it's up to each individual to have the will to do something, or for that matter, not do anything. There are people that choose to even be homeless, the same as there are people that choose to live in topical rainforests who aren't interested in money, etc. So "will", "drive", etc comes from within, you can't go to a shop and "buy it", therefore, you cannot pay money for it.

I wasn't saying that you can't have charities in a Capitalist country - there's plenty of them where I live too. You wouldn't say Australia isn't a Capitalist country would you? Last time I checked it was.

Almost every country I know of (so-called western) uses a system called "Social Market Economy".
Differences are mostly in the balance between the two (opposing?) concepts of "Social" and "Market Economy" (and other politics of course).
I like that.

https://www.independent.ie/world-new...-36243236.html

jsb, but in a Socialist or Communist country it is not up to the individual to do anything. The idea of the individual is considered a sin against the State, everything is done for the greater good of the group/State. In a true Communist country it is illegal to be "homeless" or unemployed, they strive for 100% employment whether you like it or not. Of course that is not private employment its either directly for the State or State controlled companies.
Regarding Australia just like any other country you would have to examine the tax code and policies of the country. If it imposes a "progressive tax plan" that taxes people at different levels with the Rich being taxed the most then that is a Marxist system. If the State services grow each year and become a major part of the States spending ie: National Health Care, Social Services etc..., then its a Socialist country, if everything is owned by the Government then its a Communist country etc... The lines have become blurred because the Socialists have learned to take on different names and they always hide their agenda behind humanistic/altruistic concerns that is a red herring.
This is an interesting article: https://economics.org.au/2012/07/aus...-to-socialism/

Well, can't say I totally disagree, but can't say I totally agree with the above either.

Regarding Australia, the country has had things like a National Health Care system (Medicare), a Social Welfare system (Centrelink), etc for as long as I can remember, these things are hardly new. And the federal government is doing everything it can to get people off of welfare, by almost any means it can, right, wrong, or indifferently (actually all of the above). So while I'm yet to read the link about Australia's so-called "slide to socialism", not sure you should necessarily believe everything you read on the interwebs that suit your particular political leanings.

jsb, what does new or old have to do with it, regarding Australian Socialism? Thank you for mentioning Centrelink, I forgot about that.

Looking over the Centrelink website it is Socialism not Socialism light nor a type of quasi Socialism. "Free money" from the government for everything?

Ref:
https://www.humanservices.gov.au/
https://www.humanservices.gov.au/ind...ls/job-seekers

You linked to an article titled "Australia’s slide to socialism"; the new vs old relates to the "slide to" part, not the "socialism" part. Although apparently it's from a speech made in 1978, which might precede jsbjsb001's memory (but I don't know how old he is).

See ntubski's post above - exactly what they said, ie. the "slide to" part.

You're very welcome.

Then at least a couple of things are very clear to me about your views and understandings of "capitalism" vs socialism", and Australia's welfare system (and most likely our health care system too for that matter);

In regards to welfare payments; The "Newstart" payment, aka "the dole", is for people who are unemployed, or aren't earning enough to support themselves, "earning enough" is a certain amount decided by the federal government. It requires you to be looking for work, and also attend appointments with what the government calls "employment service providers", to "help" you find a job. Who can suspend your payment if you don't attend your appointments, and/or who don't feel you are trying to find work. You also have to do "work for the dole" for at least 6 months of the year, it depends what "stream" you're in as to exactly how many hours you have to "work". So you're very much misunderstanding how the welfare system works here, and it's clear from your "free money" reference that you clearly don't understand how the welfare system here works. To get the "Disability Support Pension (DSP)", you have to prove to the government that you cannot work. Otherwise, they will not give it to you, period. And they've made it almost near impossible to be granted the DSP, you have to be "disabled" to the point of almost being in a coma to have much if not any hope of getting it. You are only entitled to the "Aged Pension" if you are over a certain age (can't remember exactly how old you need to be), otherwise they will not give it to you.

It's also clear to me that you regard anything less then what they call "ultra-capitalism" as either "light Socialism" or flat out "Socialism", which just isn't correct. Would you say that you're a "Socialist" because you use a free OS, be that some Linux based OS, or one of the BSD's ? How about we generalize it even more and say because you use a "Unix-like" OS that you have NOT paid for, instead of using Windows, that therefore you're a "Socialist" who doesn't support "Capitalism" ? Well, you can see the problems with saying such things - it's just total BS, don't you think ? Well I think so. Also, do you think because the Democrats are generally what we would call "left-wing" that it means the Republican party doesn't have left and right wings? Anymore than it doesn't mean the Democrats don't have left and right wings ? Well, you'd be very much mistaken if you did think either, as much as you'd be very much mistaken if you thought the same about the two major political parties here. You're effectively saying that "if it's not ultra-capitalism, then it's socialism", sorry, but no, I believe you're very much incorrect. Either way, I for one could not agree with you.

Yes, spot on.

And yes, I wasn't even on the Earth in 1978, although it doesn't mean I'm ignorant to history and how things are now (not saying you were implying that I am).

Regarding any manner of diluting pure capitalism, I think it should be obvious that is always going to occur. Once more wealth begins as it always will to be in the hands of a few it is inevitable, even if it takes generations, that they will find ways to influence all infrastructure through ads, support for ideas, platforms, political parties and politicians to benefit them and sooner or later to also curtail competition.

One classic example of this from the US was Alcoa Aluminum. At first the mining and refining of aluminum was prohibitively expensive since an effective demand did not yet exist. So the Fed granted Alcoa a monopoly and some funding and discounts to stimulate growth until it could become profitable. Naturally once it became profitable Alcoa worked to maintain that monopoly to maximize profits. Similar stories exist for most ne products and the world would be a very different and lesser place if that hadn't occurred BUT part of the cost of stimulationg important innovation is that the "door has been opened" to unnaturally benefit a wealthy and powerful few so in order to maintain balance some social reforms are introduced like public schooling so that young adults can read and write to deal with instructions and work in those mines and refineries and the Gap begins to grow.

After a time it becomes difficult if not impossible to discern if it would have been better overall to not have cheap or free health care, education etc as part of The Social Contract as a cost of doing business in an increasingly technological world. I, for one, think the whole world is better off when nations invest in the future but I also see it leads down a very dangerous path. It is my sincere hope even if it takes a thousand years, or ten thousand years, that technology like truly cheap energy, healthcare, housing and education will ultimately lead to all humans understanding that innovation and all manner of useful wonders can come from anywhere and anyone provided there appears to everyone there is a path to grow as much as you can manage to and that there will be little or no need for deciders since we will all grasp that balance between poles as well as competition is good for everyone, like it is on any solid team. Much of this concept I extrapolate from the idea that given the option the vast majority of people will prefer meaningful lives over laziness.

When I add to this that a mere 5% of the US federal budget put man on the moon, it seems a thousand years may be very conservative. It seems doable. To get there, though, I think we must accept that any economic system is going to evolve, and evolve past that stage of giddy productivity to become more closed and prohibitive. Somehow it seems we need some mechanism to "reboot" short of violent revolution. Unfortunately I don't know what that is or even could be. Most likely I imagine we will just plod through and real progress will be agonizingly slow with lost of "false steps" and not a little of despotic steps backwards at least in some places.

Of course there is one major factor on the horizon that will very likely create vast new change and that is the loss of job opportunity created by AI, if that actually works out that way. Most innovation has created more new jobs than it destroyed old ones, but AI is yet an unknown and I can only hope the good will outweigh the bad, that there will be no end to human progress anytime soon. It does however worry me greatly that we currently seem to be in a stage of doubt and reaction, of conspiracy theories everywhere, and concepts like Flat Earth still exist that should have been dead and buried a thousand years ago. But then it has long been said that Truth is wilder than Fiction. It does make a fascinating story though. I wish I could see much more of it unfold.

TLDR - Everything is a Package Deal.

capitalism is for greedy bastards that do not actually care about the other person, either. it is a bias selfish system just like the others.

Where Charity is just used to inflate there egos and tax cuts (shelters).

what little I know about the others is in laymen's terms it is suppose to be one for all system, where everything is shared among the people by the people. all working for the common goal and it actually would promote equality.

were capitalism does not in any way promote equality. Instead the more one makes is that persons worth to the society he lives in. No money he is seen as worthless and wanted to be gotten rid of due to him being a burden to the system of capitalism.

jsb, just when we were having a nice adult discussion and this thread was going so well you had to take things personally. First, where did the Democrats and Republicans in the American system come into this thread? Second, since you mentioned them, yes most of the Democrat party are avowed Socialists and some are card carrying Communists, approx. half of the Republican party are also Socialists. If you are implying that I am a Republican just spouting off political slogans, then you are clearly misinformed. I belong to neither party and do not support either party. Personally I think politics would be better off with the end of political parties and a return to running on individual accomplishments/ideas. Grand coalitions always enrich the elites at the expense of the citizens/subjects/masses.

BTW, what you described above is classical Socialism and it shows one of its dangers which is the longer it's in practice the harder it is to end because the people become conditioned to depend on it, which is exactly how those systems are setup. Similar ideology to drug dealers giving away free samples knowing that eventually they will have life long dependents/repeat customers.

PS: Linux and Unix are not Socialist OS', there is no such thing. Software can be used for any purpose, and I have a news flash for you *nix is very much big business. There are also plenty of us who support FOSS/FLOSS with our own resources and/or technical skills as well.

Make sure you never buy anything, live only on a barter system and make sure your government never asks Capitalist countries for money.

Most capitalists are just one unfortunate event away from becoming socialists...

Like I said in post #3

"If one was to follow God then everything would be free, and that's that. But like God man has to work with and put up with the Godless that want something for something."

This is where true Christianity comes in. ask and you will receive, and when asked give and ask for nothing in return. it is a completely free system of living. NO barter system whatsoever.

Where Equality is had. but, again as I said Godless people ruin it for everyone.

Who defines "true" Christianity? What does religion have to do with Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, except that usually religions are frowned upon in Socialist, Communist, Fascist countries?

Sigh.... after seeing "that ole time Religion" brought into the discussion and especially after watching the incredible new Joe Rogan interview with Edward Snowden, I may have to amend my hopes to 100,000 years.