Agree or disagree - a question from the new citizenship test
farfromglorified
Posts: 5,696
So, I'm reading over the new citizenship test today and I notice this is one of the questions:
Q: What type of economic system does the U.S. have?
A: Capitalist economy
I'm curious what people's thoughts on this are, particularly whether or not they agree that the answer is correct. I really don't have time to debate this today, so feel free to post whatever you'd like in here without fear of repraisal from me
(unless of course you explicitly ask for it)
Q: What type of economic system does the U.S. have?
A: Capitalist economy
I'm curious what people's thoughts on this are, particularly whether or not they agree that the answer is correct. I really don't have time to debate this today, so feel free to post whatever you'd like in here without fear of repraisal from me
(unless of course you explicitly ask for it) Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
that's the right answer. the 2 choices are capitalist or communist.
It is really not a question that should be there because, while I think capitalist is more "correct" than communist, I believe there is a continuum between pure capitalism and pure socialism. Pure capitalism would not have regulatory agencies, public schools, a publicly funded military or any taxes/government it all. Pure socialism would not have any form of business competition or the massive income gaps we see.
So the question should not be there, as it is too subjective.
Agreed.
Me too. This isn't capitalism.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
it's not communism either.
Yes, common sense should tell the test taker to say capitalism...reminds me of the Simpsons when Apu took his orally citizenship test and was asked what caused the Civil War:
Apu: "The causes for the Civil War were many and complex. First the agricultural economy of the time..."
Moderator: "Just say slavery."
Apu: "Slavery it is."
LOL...That's the fucked up thing about how they teach our kids history. My son's in the second grade and when we talk history I try not to get to indepth with him right now because he's only 7 and I don't need him arguing with his teacher about whether Columbus was a swell guy or not but eventually when he's about 15-16 I'm going to give him Howard Zinn's A people's history of the United States and tell him to read that if he really wants some varying perspectives.
than what it is NOT. Exceptions are those concepts which are inherently
negative in meaning, such as orphan or bachelor. But note that a positive
concept is always presupposed by such negative terms." -DK
yes, but if your choices are capitalism or communism... id say we're closer to the former than the latter.
I'd like to find the person who wrote it, have them take a look at the Farm Bill, and then try to answer their own question.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
1. What is communism?
2. What is capitalism?
1. complete government control of economy to ensure equal distribution of wealth.
2. self regulating economy lead by entrepaneurs working in a free market.
or something along those lines. and we're more the latter than the former.
I would kind of agree. I think that socialism is better than communism when looking for the opposite of capitalism.
Which is not the case for capitalism.
Capitalism is an economic system wherein all property is owned by private individuals or entities. Those individuals and entities may freely exchange goods and services in any manner they choose. Capitalism prescribes no particular political environment aside from the fact that the political environment must not introduce violence into the business of exchange or the process of production.
Communism is a political system wherein the state controls property and production. Since this political system is founded upon economic constructs, one cannot separate the political or economic functions of the system. One cannot be communist without involving politics in economics.
In America, who owns property? The individual, or the state? The answer is obviously the state. As established in the Constitution and upheld by a century of precedent, you have no right to own property in this nation. Rather, you only have a right to steward property on behalf of the state. The state may, for any reason codified in law or judicial precendent, forcibly take assets from you without compensation or consideration of your interests or will.
In America, are economics and politics separate? Of course not. The state inserts itself into nearly every economic transaction between private individuals and entities. These insertions come in the form of taxes, regulations, and often times simple brute force.
Does this mean that America is communist state? I would say yes. Does this mean that America is the same as Soviet Russia, or Cuba, or Venezuela, or China? I would say no. Are Cuba and China the same? Again, no. But does that make one a capitalist nation and one a communist nation? No.
A communist state that refrains from overbearing statism doesn't make a state non-communist, it simply makes it less overbearing and less intrusive. Communism prescribes the justifications for intrusion, not necessarily the prescription for how or how often to intrude. In other words, Communism establishes that a central government must hold a enforcible authority over economics and also provides the moral justification of that authority: the "common good". Since both that authority and that moral concept can come in many forms, communism prescribes no specific manifestation, though only so many things can be used to accomplish its aims (namely - statism, altruism, guilt, fear, and guns).
Conversely, capitalism prescribes a specific economic system: one wherein individual rights are not only primary, but exlusionary of all other considerations. One cannot be "capitalist" unless one believes in the absolute ownership of property by private individuals. One cannot compromise an absolute without destroying its meaning in total. You cannot own something and not own something at the same time just like you cannot be alive and dead at the same time. Life is an absolute. In a capitalist economic system, property is as well.
So, I can see an argument for two potential answers to this question. The first would be "communist". The second, taking a limited set of principles from Marx, would lead to another answer of "non-communist". However, in no way can I see the correct answer being "capitalist".
And under no circumstances does either "capitalism" or "communism" (though I assume you mean socialism here) in any way equate to "non-violent."
What is a "mixed economy"?
The principles of capitalism stand completely opposed to the principles of violence. You cannot be violent economically and be a capitalist. Capitalism is based on exchange, not force. Now, this doesn't mean everyone within a capitalist system is completely non-violent. Nor does it mean capitalism cannot exist as an economic system within a political environment that also promotes extreme violence outside of the economic arena.
I was refering to violence by the state to "protect" individual property. After all, how else are you going to get those squatters off your lawn?
How can you utilize elements of two systems that completely contradict each other? If someone tells you that 1=1, and another person tells you that 1=2, how do you mix those things together? If you poured gasolene into a glass of water, would you call that a "mixed drink"?
Your question here is spurious. The term "squatter" implies that property rights exist within a society and therefore ownership exists in that society. Yet "squatters", by definition, deny any right to property. How can I have ownership of something in a society that does not respect ownership?
The act of squatting implies that ownership is based on nothing more than possession. In that case, when one forcibly removes a squatter from a piece of property, one is simply playing by the squatters own established rules of ownership. There is nothing more illogical or violent about forcibly removing a squatter from your property than there is about removing a rapist from your body.
not really. most takings demand compensation. in some cases, yes, you don't get compensated. but that is the exception rather than the rule.
you're doing the same thing you claim we're doing. just becos something isn't strictly capitalist doesn't make it communist. and yes, there ARE degrees. you can be a toddler, teen, dead, or dying. likewise you can have no property, total control of property, or something in the middle.
i think your argument is way off. there is NO private property in communism. all is owned by the state. in america, this is not the case. all the land is owned by the US, but the things you buy are yours and cannot be taken with due process and just compensation. if anything, you could argue that america is socialist... but i seen absolutely no way you can say the united states is communist. in communism the government controls ALL of the capital, in capitalism the people do. in socialism, it's in the middle. but there is no way you could convince me america is a communist economy. if it was, id be wicked pissed off cos they're doing a shitty fucking job distributing it. you would not see dick cheney makes 10000000000 times as much as joe american if this was a communist economy.
you can smell the bullshit on this hundreds of miles away. to say there is no force or violence is capitalism is utterly ridiculous. you seem to have this blind ideology of every human being as a very noble and gentlemanly person who is always going to play nice as long as there are no rules. you know people are going to violently abuse total free market capitalism. it's been shown time and time again throughout history... wealth cannot regulate itself. it's an addiction like any other... once you get a taste you want more and eventually you will do anything to get it. absolute power corrupts absolutely.
no, but a rum and coke ends up being better than either of its parts standing alone. both are fine on their own but have their problems. you put them together and you get the best of both worlds.
yes there is, becos forcibly removing them from your property does violence to their body. they did not do violence to your body and a human's body is worth more than any piece of property. thus, your response is violent in that is inflicts damage upon them that is far worse than the damage done to you.
Show me violence, and I'll show you a violation of exchange.
No I don't. I simply don't expect people to be noble and gentlemanly when the rules promote theft and violence.
Of course.
Wealth always regulates itself. An engine is always an engine. A dollar is always a dollar.
People, on the other hand, have the ability to regulate themselves or not to.
You have it backwards. Absolute corruption can create absolute power.
This is simply untrue. Eminent domain wherein a person is compensated is the exception. The rule is the confiscation of property as "evidence" or as "tax". Furthermore, the compensation that does exist could easily be removed if the whims of the state change.
I didn't say that we were communist because we're not capitalist. I said we're communist because our economy is dominated by the state and our property is owned by the state -- the two hallmarks of communism.
Huh? If I buy drugs, who will take them? If I exchange labor for salary, who will take half of it? And where is the compensation and due process for that?
First, the government does control all capital in this country. Check your wallet.
Secondly, where in the definition of communism does it prescribe that the vice president make 10000000000 times as much as joe american ?