Capitalism or Socialism?

**~~Brännvin~~** · 08-09-2009, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by SwordoftheVistula

Many such people are not true capitalists in the ideological sense, and others are just competing as best they can in the current mixed capitalist/socialist system to grab as much benefits as they can before their competitor does.

True, this is the question that the capitalism (market anarchism) in the pure sense will never exist in practice.

**Rudy** · 08-09-2009, 01:34 PM

I voted for a mixture.

Corporations should be allowed to fail when they cannot compete.

Middle class people with jobs and health insurance should not face bankruptcy over medical bills, or even lawyer bills for that matter.

The true line is between the haves and have not. The rich fund both parties simultaneously.

The free trade is so the rich can increase profits, with fewer taxes. Government monopolies are rackets. Once the corporations get so big, they take on a life of their own. I am not sure what to do about them, except to government seize them, and appoint Apricians as the CEOs.

**Lulletje Rozewater** · 08-09-2009, 01:38 PM

"Everything for the people, nothing by the people."
Benevolent Despotism.
Socialism stinks
Capitalism in whatever form is corrupt.
Aprician CEO's are for the birds

**Skandi** · 08-09-2009, 04:35 PM

I am probably more socialist than capitalist, I believe that all essential services (fuel, water, transport, communications) should be provided by the state. and that most internal domestic policy would be strongly socialist, for example there would be a welfare state, but it would be heavily monitored and only open to citizens (I have posted about this elsewhere) However I think that non essential services and food should be privately owned and open in INTERNAL competition. Internal to the country that is, all international dealings would be on a strictly capitalist and protectionist base (If such a thing is possible).

**Loddfafner** · 08-09-2009, 04:46 PM

Capitalism needs a measure of socialism in order to work at all over the long term. If each firm cuts its labor costs, then fewer people can afford the goods they make and the whole system will come to a crashing halt. If firms compete while sharing the same level of regulation, the system will be more sustainable.

And in response to Aemeric:

Capitalism. But without globalization or 'free trade'.

Capitalism without free trade would no longer be capitalism. Socialist policies should protect populations from the full impact of globalization without weakening them from stiff external competition. No country can isolate itself from the rest of the world and the realities of what alternatives are available and how cheaply others can produce goods.

**~~Æmeric~~** · 08-09-2009, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by Thrymheim

I am probably more socialist than capitalist, I believe that all essential services (fuel, water, transport, communications) should be provided by the state.

Fuel: We need more competition in the fuel sector. Giving the government a monopoly in fuel would be a disaster. As it is there is plenty of competition in the coal industry in the US. It is the motor vehile fuel sector were we need more competition, most areas are generally served by only a few distributors.

Water. Water is generally a government ran utility in the US but by the local towns & citites, sometimes by local water districts. It is what is known as a natural monopoly. Concentration of water at the state or national level would be a mistake, best to leave it to local governments, who compete with other local governments in providing decent services at reasonable prices. As it is I get my water from a water cooperative - owned by the customers. No local government authority (let alone a private for-profit corporation) want to built a water line in this area. Why turn it over to the government?

Transport: Do you mean trucking (the transport of private goods)? There is a fairly competitive private sector handling that function. Airlines? Thats another sector that is private in the US & should remain so. Transport is an unnatural monopoly. Urban transport? Why shouldn't there be competing lines of coach companies competing for urban commuters?

Communications: But in the olden days, this was a natural monopoly when everyone had land lines. Now with wireless, there is plenty of competition. Why give the governement a monopoly?You can also choose between landline cable TV service or satellite TV. There are 2 satellite TV providers in the US & most urban dwellers also have the choice of a land cable service. Want to let the governement decide what programming will be carried?

My landline telephone & internet is provided by a rural telephone cooperative. Why should we turn it over to the governemnt to run?

**Útrám** · 08-09-2009, 05:05 PM

Old-school "who does not work shall not eat" socialism in harmony with a private but reasonably regulated market.

**Loki** · 08-09-2009, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by Ariets

The thing is that only capitalism works, and only capitalism means truly fair economic system, that makes you free and that is compatible with natural laws.

How then do you explain Nazi Germany's astonishing economic success and prosperity, fuelled by socialist economic policies? The NSDAP was vehemently opposed to Jewish-American-style capitalism. And I'm not talking about racial policies and foreign policy now.

Socialism is a theft, and socialist are thiefs.

If it is part of a system that was voted in by the majority of the electorate, then it cannot be theft. It is voluntary then. Soviet Communism was theft, yes, but we're not talking about that.

As a note, such statements like Loki's signature "I support free healthcare for all poor people" are extreme naive, there's nothing for free in the world, and something like free healthcare is just not free.
"There's no such thing as a free lunch" Milton Friedman.

Yes I know, someone has to pay. The richest people in society should support the lower levels with a percentage of their earnings. Otherwise, you're creating a class-based and split community that will always be at great odds with each other -- leading to resentment, crime, robbery, etc.

And as it is in socialism, how your own money are yours if you are not able to administrate them? Are you happy when goverment steals up to 75% of your earnings? (like in Sweden eg., or in Poland it can have even 70% by various taxes and other nonsense).

Well, the Swedish model has worked very well. Sweden is one of the most advanced countries on earth, and their citizens are enjoying fantastic quality of life. It is only now being corrupted by massive immigration from unwanted areas of the globe.

**Loddfafner** · 08-09-2009, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Æmeric

My landline telephone & internet is provided by a rural telephone cooperative. Why should we turn it over to the governemnt to run?

I see cooperatives as a form of socialism. I do not equate socialism with control by a distant state, though the state is best placed for coordinating large-scale cooperative arrangements.