capitalism, communism or socialism

[AavaMeri]

I'm biased, since I live in Finland, and Finland is a socialistic country, and I think it works. So I replied Socialism in all three. I also admit I'm not super knowledgeable about capitalism and communism.

My (biased) definition of socialism: There are base services funded by taxes, so all people have at least somewhat equal starting ground. This includes education and healthcare, so everyone can have basic education and no one has to make the choice of "debt by hospital bills or death by cancer". Private companies still exist and form a large share of economy, but certain base areas are tax-funded.

My (biased) definition of capitalism: Everything is privatized, people may ask the price they want, it's up to a person if they are successful or not. Flexible, less bureaucracy. Dangerous to people who have less than ideal starting grounds, for example those with poor background or disabilities.

My (biased) definition of communism: Everything is shared, no one owns a private thing except maybe like their own clothes. I could imagine that communism works in a small scale like in a single family (when people mutually agree it), but nation-wide it becomes so taxing by bureaucracy and logistics that it falls impossible (how to follow what has been produced and who got their share?). I've heard that in Vietnam, there has been situations like "farmers work hard to produce food, only to get rotten food from storages later because poor storing". I also feel like that if EVERYTHING goes through come centralized hub, there is a danger that the hub gets corrupt.

A sincere question: Can someone break down to me why someone would prefer capitalism or communism over socialism? I see socialism as a good balance between the two. 

[Still]

10 hours ago, AavaMeri said:

Finland is a socialistic country

 

10 hours ago, AavaMeri said:

My (biased) definition of socialism: There are base services funded by taxes, so all people have at least somewhat equal starting ground. This includes education and healthcare, so everyone can have basic education and no one has to make the choice of "debt by hospital bills or death by cancer". Private companies still exist and form a large share of economy, but certain base areas are tax-funded.

That's not what socialism is. What you described is social democracy.

[AavaMeri]

On 9/27/2022 at 8:14 PM, Still said:

 

That's not what socialism is. What you described is social democracy.

Could you explain the difference, in layperson terms?

 

Edit: Nvm found a Wikipedia article that explains at least something. I may or may not get back after digesting it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

[Frendo]

If everything was ideal and in the flip of a switch I could change everything, it would have to be communism. The main idea of it is utopia(but I just think its entirely unrealistic). Assuming that everyone's standard of living rised by a lot instantly and everyone could access anything they desired or needed then that would be the best. In communism we would basically be prepared to fight any challenge that faced us as humanity while being united under one regime(or lack thereof) with free information and just freedom from some of the burdens that we find in capitalism or poverty. But the world would never allow for this utopia in my opinion. Humans are just not like that.

[Lilibulero]

None of the above.

[Missing]

I would prefer to live in an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We would take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more... well, you get the idea.