Quote :

"Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation. In Marxist theory, socialism is a transitional phase between capitalism and communism characterized by unequal distribution of wealth and compensation according to work done. Contrary to popular belief, socialism is not a political system; it is an economic system distinct from capitalism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism


I think this is a pretty fair description of Socialism and one that arguably could apply to a lot of policies being bandied about today. Non-socialists: why the inherent fear and distrust of socialism? Socialists: why do so few people who would make political arguments which align themselves with socialism recoil for the use of the word?

Discuss.

(and yes I used a Wikipedia link. I don't want to hear the tired repetitions of college professors who make money publishing books that Wikipedia is an inherently inaccurate source)

9/18/2009 11:20:08 AM

Quote :

"Non-socialists: why the inherent fear and distrust of socialism? "

Talking points distributed by the Republican Party on Fox News.

Quote :

"Socialists: why do so few people who would make political arguments which align themselves with socialism recoil for the use of the word?"

See first question.

9/18/2009 11:22:34 AM

Quote :

"wikipedia"

discuss

9/18/2009 3:01:24 PM

Terrorism

9/18/2009 3:21:06 PM

socialism grants a monopoly to the state. There are no means of recourse against the state.

There are degrees of socialism that are acceptable, but only if they require people to pay into the system what they take out (ex: post office, utilities, etc...)

Most anti-capitalists will point to things like the banks as proof that we need socialism. However, they ignore the fact that those banks haven't been capitalist enterprises for decades. If private individuals own the reward and the state owns the risk, its not capitalism. Its socialism. In a capitalist system the banks would have been allowed to fail. The system would have corrected itself by destroying bad banks and creating new ones from those who took on less risk. Instead, our socialist system has allowed a few smaller banks to fail and then allowed other banks to use tax payer money to pick the good parts out of the failed banks. The fed is then forced to own bad debt. The result is the largest of the large banks used the fed to get rid of their toxic assests and at the same time pick up the best parts of their smaller competitors. Now we have even fewer banks.

When looking at healthcare, there is plenty of room for limited governement involvement. Perscription drugs is one great and obvious example. The fed uses its purchasing power to get discounts on drugs. It then sells them at cost to tax payers or at a fraction of cost based on need. This is sustainable because most users pay the cost of the system as they use it, while taxes can be used to help those in need.

The absolute worst form of socialism is whats been done to the banks and what is proposed for the healthcare system. Currently hospitals and providers farm their costs off to insurance companies. The insurance companies fight the costs and they go back and forth until either the claim is denied or the provider/hospital gives in. In the new system providers will just farm their costs off to the fed. If the fed denies the claim, its no different from the current system. If the accept whatever they charge, its rife for abuse (medicare). What will end up happening is just like with the banks, the fed will become the dominate healthcare payer. The best case scenario is that it eventually evolves into price controls where the fed dictates absolute costs for each procedure. The more likely case is it will go the way of medicare. Large companies in the healthcare market will get special privledges in order to make sure they get whatever they want to charge. The result will be that we either pay the same as we pay now (via taxes instead of premiums) or we end up paying more.


I've said this before, but the problem is that one side is just making up total bullshit (death panels) and the other side just ignores any rational debate (UGH HEALTHCARE IS SO FUCKED WE HAVE TO PASS SOMETHING ANYTHING WHATEVER AND WE HAVE TO PASS IT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). The best thing we can hope for now is that the current bill gets killed and we focus on fixing the more important issues of energy and education. Then we come back later and fix healthcare a piece at a time.


tl;dr: some government involvement in the economy can work, but any system where people pay in less than they take out is unsustainable and will fail. Better to put the risk of failure on private businesses than the government.

9/18/2009 3:24:26 PM

NM. It's not worth it.

[Edited on September 18, 2009 at 3:53 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2009 3:46:01 PM

wikipedia is totally socialist

[Edited on September 18, 2009 at 3:50 PM. Reason : ,]

9/18/2009 3:48:51 PM

Being anti-capitalist doesn't necessarily mean being pro-command economy or even pro-big government in general.

Freer markets are what is important to allocating resources and serving the needs of people, not capitalism. You can be a free market anti-capitalist. This would involve cooperative production, though. It's better to try to create more capitalists through policies that favor putting as much capital in as many hands as possible (favoring small business, for example). I think the internet is a great tool for that.

Really people's focus should be on the market and distributing as much capital in as many hands as you can as the great creator of advanced societies, not captain of industry capitalists, unless you just really got a boner reading Atlas Shrugged.

[Edited on September 18, 2009 at 4:10 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2009 4:05:01 PM

Pretty sure pro government is the definition of anti-capitalism.

9/18/2009 4:09:09 PM

Quote :

"Pretty sure pro government is the definition of anti-capitalism."

well, you're wrong, but you've got to dig deeper than the typical american political discourse to see that.

i mean, even for socialists, isn't the final stage of communism a stateless society?

[Edited on September 18, 2009 at 4:12 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2009 4:11:34 PM

theres no such thing as a stateless economy. 10 people in a commune is 10 people in the governement.

9/18/2009 4:17:49 PM

state implies coercion.

are you suggesting people aren't trusting enough for non-coercive society? i mean, it is possible.

9/18/2009 4:20:17 PM

In the case of small groups its possible since you can get a small group of like minded people. 10 people in a farm commune that all like farming wont have a problem. Add someone to that group who refuses to do farm work. Either the other 10 pick up his slack or they force him to do it. Neither is fair. Now add another 9 people just like him. You end up with two opposing factions who will now fight on the best way to manage the labor resources of the commune.

9/18/2009 4:32:05 PM

well i'm being an idealist here. we can't exactly quantitatively measure the point at which what you've suggested happens so it's all just speculation, much like economics in general.

9/18/2009 4:36:09 PM

actually i'd say you've reached the point as soon as you have two people with differing opinions.

9/18/2009 4:37:16 PM

so have you never learned reconciliation?

unless you think sacrificing even .0000001% of your strongest convictions automatically mean's you've become repressed.

[Edited on September 18, 2009 at 4:43 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2009 4:42:36 PM

straw-man and racist

9/18/2009 4:47:47 PM

Quote :

"so have you never learned reconciliation? unless you think sacrificing even .0000001% of your strongest convictions automatically mean's you've become repressed."

Not quite what I meant. Theres obvious room for compromise between people of like, but not identical mindsets (ex: the farmers decide to grow 70% apples/30% pears). However when you have huge differences of opinion like with the healthcare bill the only possible result of compromise is a complete disaster that doesn't help anyone. One of the reasons i like a small fed is that you can have clusters of like minded people in local areas that aren't affected by the central government. As the local areas come up with systems that work well, the ideas get shared until the best system becomes the system everyones using. Then that can be managed by the central government. A large fed prevents that sort of innovation and forces compromise between 300 million people. The end is something no one really likes but everyone is forced to live with.

9/18/2009 5:12:05 PM

But what about the consequences of those who can't vote w/ their feet? To be sure they should have their rights protected in some manner (thinking of federal legislation w/ regards to civil rights).

This has nothing to do w/ socialism, but it has to be mentioned whenever people mention that concept. It sounds good and typically works in most ways, but there is the problem of when the vision of rights and liberties of said population is so warped (you could say this for minorities in muslim nations, for example) that it denies the rights of the minority (and there's always going to be a minority).

Thankfully, in this nation, we ended up with the federalist and not the anti-federalist vision of the constitution (plus the important bill of rights). I'm all for states rights and self-determination, but not without something like a Bill of Rights. It's not enough to just say "well, vote w/ your feet" like the extreme anti-federalist would say.

Wow, now I've gotten away from my argument w/ regards to socialism, but this is more in-line w/ my actual ideology.

9/19/2009 9:42:23 AM

Quote :

"Non-socialists: why the inherent fear and distrust of socialism?"

I don't know that there is an "inherent" fear or distrust of socialism. There are reasonable objections to it, though. The meaning of socialism has been watered down in a lot of American circles to mean "government taking more of my shit so they can give more to other people that can't pay for it." And really, that's exactly what happens as a result of socialist policies. It's a simplified view, but it's accurate.

Any modern liberal will have to admit, they're fine with taking more from the well off individuals in society in order to take care of the less well off. Anyone that objects, of course, hates poor people and wants them to die. And that's the split. Err, wait, let me get back to fox news. I forgot the rest of my talking points.

9/19/2009 12:42:14 PM

isnt it funny that some people on an NC STATE message board are arguing that government should stay out of their lives??

maybe they should have gone to harvard...

9/19/2009 2:15:34 PM

Quote :

"Thankfully, in this nation, we ended up with the federalist and not the anti-federalist vision of the constitution (plus the important bill of rights). I'm all for states rights and self-determination, but not without something like a Bill of Rights. It's not enough to just say "well, vote w/ your feet" like the extreme anti-federalist would say."

I disagree strongly. All the federalists did was make it harder for those that could vote with their feet to do so. You don't need a strong centralized government to have a bill of rights. What you do need a strong centralized government for is to impose policies that would otherwise get overturned by the whole feet voting mechanism.

9/19/2009 2:18:01 PM

yeah why didn't all those black people just VOTE WITH THEIR FEET instead of having the gall to try to place their natural rights over the desires of some states? Everyone has the ability to just pick up and leave whenever they want!

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 10:54 AM. Reason : .]

9/21/2009 10:52:05 AM

this one is easy guys.

Capitalism -> you will go bankrupt in 10 years, take money from people by sales

Socialism -> you will go bankrupt in 24 months, and take money from people via taxes

9/21/2009 11:14:48 AM

GOOD JOB PLAYA

9/21/2009 11:33:52 AM

We did not need a strong central government to get rid of slavery. It could have used the right to tax (which it always had) to peacefully fix the problem in the same way that every other civilization nation did: you buy up all the slaves, compensate their former owners at a reasonable eminent domain price, then everyone goes home happy. The Blacks would then be free to vote with their feet and no one need get shot.

Of course, as I said, 'place' is very important to humans so very few of us have the nerve to take that walk. Especially now that the best we can hope for is change in name only for some other territory where the economy is similarly dominated by the Federal Government.

9/21/2009 11:44:11 PM

Holy Christmas...did you just suggest getting rid of slavery by taxing it? Please tell me you are trolling.

9/21/2009 11:50:16 PM

We shouldn't have attacked Nazi Germany, we just should have purchased all the Jews from them at a reasonable price. It's capitalism, people!

9/22/2009 12:00:06 AM

^^ No, I suggested getting rid of slavery by getting rid of slave owners, as was done in the rest of the world (except for those parts that still have slaves, of course). You don't need to invade South Carolina to fix a problem that only afflicts a small fraction of their people.

^ Am I not allowed to suggest that "shooting Nazis" and "shooting your cousin" are not equally justifiable on an historical basis?

That said, do you think Hitler would have been willing to sell back all of Europe and all of Germany's undesirables for a trillion dollars? If so, that would definitely be a deal I would make, with the proviso that we only pay after delivery. Are you suggesting that removing Hitler form power was so important that six million jews and even more soldiers must be sacrificed for the privilege?

9/22/2009 12:09:43 AM

Quote :

"This has nothing to do w/ socialism, but it has to be mentioned whenever people mention that concept. It sounds good and typically works in most ways, but there is the problem of when the vision of rights and liberties of said population is so warped (you could say this for minorities in muslim nations, for example) that it denies the rights of the minority (and there's always going to be a minority). "

more like it sounds good to certain portions of the population, but rarely works in practice. See medicare or social security. See fannie mae and freddie mac. Government involvement frequently leads to disaster and turning to government as the primary fix is terrible. When it comes to economics government should only be involved in legislating proven ideas. Let the states experiment with new economies and only move them to the federal level if they have been proven. Our current insurance based healthcare system is a failure. The various state funded insurance programs are failures. Why are we looking to move a failed system to the federal level? Better to push it back on the states or look at systems in other countries.

You seem to be going at this trying to combine social and economic issues. Surely one can have an effect on the other, but social issues are generally dictated by morality and economic issues are (should) be dictated by math. When people say healthcare should be a right they are promoting facism. Healthcare is a function of the economy only. Its no more a right than food or shelter. The kind of rhetoric that says we must give people these goods and services is what I object to. That kind of zealotry, indicative of moral arguments, has no basis in fact and should be ignored when considering the issue. Those people are no different from the religious right. Hurr we must not allow gay marriage cause its wrong! Hurr we must give healthcare to the poor because it is right! Both issues ignore the personal freedoms of a group of people. Gays to live their lives and healthcare workers to make a living.

Should we help the poor? Absolutely. Not because of some moral obligation, but because it is economically right. Poor people are a net drain on society. If they can be made to produce gains then the country as a whole is better for it. The increase in their quality of life is good for all. However, because we are currently stuck on the moral agrument rather than the economic argument nothing will be done. Not to mention that the poor would be much better served by cheaper energy and better educations than they would be with healthcare. Those two fundamental issues have been ignored because they dont play as well in politics as the moral issues of healthcare. The result is that viable and sustainable economic changes that will help the poor are ignored in favor of moral arguments for unsustainable and corrupted systems favoring political parties.

Quote :

" Thankfully, in this nation, we ended up with the federalist and not the anti-federalist vision of the constitution (plus the important bill of rights). I'm all for states rights and self-determination, but not without something like a Bill of Rights. It's not enough to just say "well, vote w/ your feet" like the extreme anti-federalist would say. "

I'm certainly not an extreme anti federalist. I'm all for a solid federal government if the laws are just and well thought out. The bill of rights is fantastic and a central government should be the place to enforce them. The problem is that our federal government has grown far too large. Going back to social security and medicare, both were poorly planned and executed solutions. There are bits and pieces that are good ideas, but most of them were destroyed by politicians for moral reasons or through corruption by the market. Pro tip: corruption in government is only as powerful as the government. Or some parts of the plan were ok at the time but are now so completely outdated that they result in a negative rate of return. And now that they're so ingrained in our government they cant be fixed because of the moral reservations. "hurrr cant fix social security cause we gotta pay dem old people". Take out a loan to pay them off, get the kids into 401ks or other tax exempt/pre-tax savings.

And i mean lets not even get into the federal bank. When shit stated to fail, did we allow capitalism to kill off the weak banks? Nope. We let the fed bailout a select group of banks. These banks took our money, bought the good parts of the banks that were allowed to fail and then passed their shitty loans off to the tax payer. The end result is fewer banks with a stronger hold on our economy. Instead of fixing the issue we have decreased competition and encouraged future failures.


tl;dr: A strong central government should enforce civil liberties. These are rights that one individual has that dont infringe on the rights of another. The central government should also enforce laws that have been time tested and proven by the states. The central government should not in any case ever make laws based on the current moral preferences of the majority.

[Edited on September 22, 2009 at 12:22 AM. Reason : lots of typos probably, its late]

9/22/2009 12:21:34 AM

^^ you're a sick fuck and your demented devotion to an ideology has clouded your sense of human decency....

9/22/2009 12:35:24 AM

Hmm, to what are you referring? To my insistence that killing millions of people is bad and should be avoided whenever possible?

Quote :

"yeah why didn't all those black people just VOTE WITH THEIR FEET instead of having the gall to try to place their natural rights over the desires of some states?"

Which brings up a good point: most certainly did we not need a strong central government to free the slaves, since we had to wage war to do it, something a weak central government could have done just as well, since even the continental congress had the right to wage war.

[Edited on September 22, 2009 at 9:10 AM. Reason : .,.]

9/22/2009 9:07:31 AM

Bump per request

5/31/2011 12:56:38 PM

OH BOI, I CANT WAIT TO SEE WHERE THIS GOES!!!!!!

5/31/2011 1:47:32 PM

How is it that Germany's economy has recovered quicker than the U.S. when their workers are unionized, have higher pay and better benefits?

[Edited on May 31, 2011 at 1:50 PM. Reason : thanks qntmfred]

5/31/2011 1:49:47 PM

Because their fundamentals are actually quite a bit stronger. They have closer to a free market than we do. Of course, they're also using the Euro, which introduces many other problems that may surface in the near future. If a Greek bailout is on the horizon, that could quickly put a damper on their recovery, which is probably why the Germans don't want to see a Greek bailout.

Germany's strong economic numbers may actually prove to be a problem, for them. The ECB could easily use those numbers as justification for a rate hike.

[Edited on May 31, 2011 at 1:57 PM. Reason : ]

5/31/2011 1:55:47 PM

Their system promotes furloughs and working less hours rather than layoffs. so while their employment is higher, many people are working shorter hours. Still preferable to being unemployed though IMO.

5/31/2011 1:58:00 PM

Quote :

"How is it that Germany's economy has recovered quicker than the U.S. when their workers are unionized, have higher pay and better benefits?"

Because by U.S. definitions they do not have a union. They have no right to strike and only have 33% representation at the negotiating table, representation countered by the government and management which have 66% of the votes.

To put it another way, U.S. unions were created to empower workers (to the detriment of employers and society), German unions were created to suppress workers (to the benefit of employers and society).

5/31/2011 4:06:50 PM

Socialism is democracy applied to the economy. Society is run by those who do the work; thus, workers are in direct control of their own industries.

Quote :

"Socialists: why do so few people who would make political arguments which align themselves with socialism recoil for the use of the word?"

Because socialism in the 19th century flowered into State-capitalism such as in the USSR. What you have here is a single employer, but you still have an exploitative economy (in which workers are paid wages and surplus-value goes to public coffers rather than private ones). The officials in the USSR had similar class interests to the Western bourgeoisie, both for imperialist expansion and for the domination of labor. The lack of liberty/freedom and the strong central authority of this form of production is rightly identified by those on the right as a terrible idea, they simply fail to recognize it as a species of capitalism. All of the essentials of the authority structure survive, including the exploitation of labor and the development of class interests contra labor.

People are afraid to use the term "socialism" because it's precisely this monstrous form of State-capitalism "socialism" is taken to refer to. The worst part about this is that this form of oppression is forced onto the workers disguised by the socialist ideals they yearned and fought hard for. Workers fought against unorganized capitalism; they were naive enough to think that a simple change-up in government could bring about socialism for them. Instead, government ran industry "on behalf of" the workers and we can see exactly how that works out. The main mistake was that workers were not ready to take the reins themselves, and let a small minority of elites do it for them. This creates class interests and privilege, and the old boss is about the same as the new. The difference is only central organization and planning, and public ownership.

Of course, as was stated at the beginning of the thread, socialism refers to democratic control of industry by those who produce. "Produce" here means "exerts effort to create goods essential to life" as opposed to "making money" which would hilariously include marketing as productive. People who refuse to read and engage intellectual history, like Shaggy, are likely to erroneously associate strong central State authority with socialism, as if "the people" and "the state" were ever the same thing (if they were, how do you explain the differences in class interests for State officials and workers in the USSR?).

Quote :

"socialism grants a monopoly to the state. There are no means of recourse against the state."

Factually incorrect; yet most American "analysis" and "thought" about socialism starts from this demonstrably untrue starting point.

5/31/2011 4:45:18 PM

If there's an agreement that the ideal is a non-coercive (purely voluntary) society, then the divergence might be in what such a society would look like, or how we should expect to reach that point. It's hard for me to imagine why anyone would take the risk of creating a productive enterprise if all the profits were going to be split down the middle, but the entrepreneur would not be forced to hire under those conditions in a free society. In a truly free market, organizational hierarchies would likely flatten over time, as the enterprises with the least "fat" (useless corporate board members that suck up profits) would be the most able to compete for labor with wages/working conditions.

Now to introduce a relevant internet meme into the mix:



In fact, the state is the root problem that has to be dealt with, as the state is what introduces the monopoly on force. In a stateless, voluntarist society, all organizations are inherently democratic, as those that participate do so out of their own choosing. Without a state to create barriers to entry, tax loopholes, or engage in other backroom deals, competition will flourish.

The "catch" to all of this is that the people aren't ready for it. People feel as though they have no control over the system they live under, so they see no reason to care. Unless people can be made to care, we'll float between full fledged tyranny and faux democracy.

[Edited on May 31, 2011 at 5:37 PM. Reason : ]

5/31/2011 5:37:03 PM

I'm not sure why you thought that post belongs in a socialism thread

5/31/2011 6:22:06 PM

Because the end game for "socialism," according to you, is not all that different than what many people call "free market capitalism." The problem isn't socialism, it's state-sponsored socialism. In the same vein, the problem isn't capitalism, it's state-sponsored capitalism. Free markets and socialism aren't mutually exclusive, which is a point worth making in a climate where the debate is usually framed as "capitalism versus socialism."

5/31/2011 6:33:56 PM

Quote :

"If private individuals own the reward and the state owns the risk, its not capitalism. Its socialism."

!capitalism != socialism. That is not socialism.

Quote :

"They have closer to a free market than we do"

Classic libertarian defense. So the power of unions as well as the large safety net somehow make it have a freer market than us? Or it is the most likely scenario that you just say whichever is more financially successful to have the freer market and work backwards from there? Speaking of which, have you thought up an explanation of why China's success is actually due to the power of the free market yet?

Quote :

"German unions were created to suppress workers (to the benefit of employers and society)."

Considering union's importance in Germany's social market economy, I would have to disagree.

Quote :

"In fact, the state is the root problem that has to be dealt with"

You realize that most economists recognize that there are market failures inherent in the unfettered free market. Granted apologists like yourself will always find something else to blame it on. But most people who stay better connected to reality would disagree.

5/31/2011 6:40:13 PM

Quote :

"Classic libertarian defense. So the power of unions as well as the large safety net somehow make it have a freer market than us?"

No, that's not what makes the market more free. State/union deals are a bad idea, as are state-sponsored "social safety nets," but we have those things too, they're just completely out of control. Social security/medicare are social safety nets, but they're unfunded and representative a massive risk to those that depend on them. Union leaders collude with government officials on the highest levels, here.

Germans understand better than most what kind of damage reckless monetary policy (and the ensuing price controls) can do; they have no desire to ever see a repeat of Weimar (or its aftermath). They also understand what it takes to keep (and not drive away) industry, whereas the United States does not.

Quote :

"Speaking of which, have you thought up an explanation of why China's success is actually due to the power of the free market yet?"

I'm not sure how much of China's recent history I would call "successful." They've become the manufacturing powerhouse of the world due to RMB/dollar peg. We're living the high life of the backs of their peasants. If doing all the work and not getting to reap the benefits is successful, then uhh...good job, China, I guess. When they finally get some sense and stop exchanging RMB for dollars at a fixed rate, they could really see their standard of living go up, even if it means sacrificing some exports.

Quote :

"You realize that most economists recognize that there are market failures inherent in the unfettered free market. Granted apologists like yourself will always find something else to blame it on. But most people who stay better connected to reality would disagree."

I've come to realize that many of your beliefs are based on what "most economists recognize," i.e. herd mentality. You've repeatedly used the argument, "...but don't you realize that most economists disagree with you?"

[Edited on May 31, 2011 at 7:02 PM. Reason : ]

5/31/2011 6:59:59 PM

Quote :

"Germans understand better than most what kind of damage reckless monetary policy"

That would have little to do with what are considered to be components of a free market.

Quote :

"I'm not sure how much of China's recent history I would call "successful.""

What about the drastic reduction in the infant mortality rate, or the drastic increase in life expectancy, or the rise in household income. None of these are "successes"?

Quote :

"We're living the high life of the backs of their peasants."

This is the high life? It seems pretty much the same. And their peasants are doing pretty good for themselves, as I explained above. It's funny to see the little imaginary world that you make up.

Quote :

"I've come to realize that many of your beliefs are based on what "most economists recognize," i.e. herd mentality."

Much of what I believe to be true in scientific fields would probably be due to what you consider "herd mentality".

Quote :

"You've repeatedly used the argument, "...but don't you realize that most economists disagree with you?""

When I talk about fairly basic and undisputed concepts, I like to point it out. Most of the other topics I talk about are strongly debated or less agreed upon, I just like to point out when it is not one of them.

5/31/2011 7:29:13 PM

government owned production is the height of stupidity.

production subsidies to private businesses are equally stupid.

if theres a market where people can make money from it without government intervention, then let it be. if its a market where people cant make money, but its critical to the country (education for the poor) then provide tax credits/subsidies to the consumers (parents of the children). If its a market where people cant make money and theres no benefit to the country (wind/solar/GM) then let it die the death it deserves.

[Edited on May 31, 2011 at 7:59 PM. Reason : a]

5/31/2011 7:58:37 PM

Quote :

"Because the end game for "socialism," according to you, is not all that different than what many people call "free market capitalism." The problem isn't socialism, it's state-sponsored socialism. In the same vein, the problem isn't capitalism, it's state-sponsored capitalism. Free markets and socialism aren't mutually exclusive, which is a point worth making in a climate where the debate is usually framed as "capitalism versus socialism.""

What you're saying makes no sense. If it's capitalism then you can privately own a factory, employing other people to work there. If it's socialism this is not possible; the factory is owned (run directly) by a workers council comprised of those who work there.

5/31/2011 8:25:00 PM

Quote :

"if its a market where people cant make money, but its critical to the country (education for the poor) then provide tax credits/subsidies to the consumers (parents of the children)"

You're putting the responsibility on the irresponsible.

5/31/2011 8:31:24 PM

Quote :

"What you're saying makes no sense. If it's capitalism then you can privately own a factory, employing other people to work there. If it's socialism this is not possible; the factory is owned (run directly) by a workers council comprised of those who work there."

So, under socialism, will someone stop me from hiring a worker on my farm? Seems like the state just becomes a "workers union." It's really no wonder that socialism always turns into state capitalism.

5/31/2011 8:58:38 PM

Quote :

"So, under socialism, will someone stop me from hiring a worker on my farm? Seems like the state just becomes a "workers union." It's really no wonder that socialism always turns into state capitalism."

The people who work on the farm would own it, so to speak. Managing production of any sort would be a democratic process open to scrutiny by anyone.

5/31/2011 9:05:29 PM