Capitalism, socialism, or a bit of both? None of the above?

Capitalism, socialism, or a bit of both? None of the above? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Level -> Capitalism, socialism, or a bit of both? None of the above? (4/4/2006 3:28:20 AM)
What's the best system? Capitalism, socialism, or the western European attempt at melding the two? None of these? This crosses my mind at times, and has done so recently after watching events in France. I'd like to hear what others think.

IronBear -> RE: Capitalism, socialism, or a bit of both? None of the above? (4/4/2006 4:13:04 AM)
Practically a mix of both probably will work for most especially if a government will actively support small business and not sit by whilst the large business empires destroy the sbamm business incentives and capabilityof surviving and flourishing. This will of course mean money stays locally and creates local employment.... Good example I have locally for me, is it bacomes impossible for accountants or counsellors etc to work from home due to local council regulations, and yet a combination of local and state government lack of assistance orfiscal rational makes it almost impossible to open a private practice in the commercial area due to over prices costs such asrent where landlords would rather have whole buildings empty.... Emotionally and very idealistically, Give me the feudal system.... I'm already a feudal and would never be a serf .. so I'm biased.. [;)]

Chaingang -> RE: Capitalism, socialism, or a bit of both? None of the above? (4/4/2006 4:35:39 AM)
I must stress my overriding principles when considering this issue: I support the rights of natural persons over corporations; and I likewise support the original purpose of corporations to serve a public good and not simply to generate profits. The U.S. is Capitalistic-Socialistic in much the same way as the many countries of Europe. We just bow to corporate pressures far too frequently. Insurance is a kind of socialism - except that the big winner is the insurance industry itself. A national health-care system would help the U.S. because it is simply more humane for such a benefit to be available to everyone regardless of economic standing; further it would actually create jobs out of the money that employers now use to pay for health-care bennies. Get rid of the insurance and HMO middlemen that are destroying our nation's health-care possibilities. It's just like anything else - some things make sense done individually and some things make sense done as a community. If you need electricity it makes sense to generate it at a community level as long as the community retains control of the costs involved. The minute you let some private entity control it - say like PG&E in Northern California - you have their profits and greed to worry about too. Don't get me started on the whole Enron scheme - that's just sheer idiocy. I see many current examples of outright legislated looting. Thank you capital! Look at our schools. They are basically run in a socialistic manner. And while there are many complaints about the quality of education our kids are receiving, privatizing things will not solve what are essentially management problems that have nothing to do with turning profits. Don't you believe the privatization lies. Often people look around and think of examples like IBM and the modern computer as the reason to support the oppressive socio-economic legal status of the corporation - but a simple study of the history of the corporation shows that it is possible to achieve many of the same things (e.g. technological marvels and wondrous public works) without allowing corporations to become political and economic powers to themselves. There is no reason why corporations could not exist severely regulated and only for a term of years and still make a handsome profit for all involved. It can be done and should be done. But corporations should never be allowed to become the kind of black hole type gravity fields the likes of Walmart - where is the public good in that? Communist China was once our idealogical enemy - now many corporations like Walmart are turning strong profits by virtue of government corruption and cheap and appalling labor practices in China. Again, how is that compatible with both our capitalist ideals and our sense of humane treatment for all? Answer: it isn't and should therefore be illegal. Walmart flies that American flag but the real money is going to mainly one family and they do it by colluding with communist China. Thank you Nixon! But hell, I guess even a communist in China has free health-care and doesn't have to worry about that, right? So it isn't as if everything about China is evil - it's just the way they treat their laborers. It takes few words to ask the question, but properly formed answers could fill volumes and volumes...

philosophy -> RE: Capitalism, socialism, or a bit of both? None of the above? (4/4/2006 4:50:06 AM)
i have always favoured the mixed economy approach........infrastructure state controlled, because everyone needs equal access to it, because capitalism isn't that egalitarian........however everything else privately controlled, cos capitalism does have a sensible place in life......just not when it comes to fixing the price of say, sewerage or electricity.

MrRodgers -> RE: Capitalism, socialism, or a bit of both? None of the above? (4/4/2006 5:25:27 AM)
Very interesting question and one I will try to answer in my own way in that I have given this subject a lot of thought and may have a book in me on it. I just haven't sat down and put it together yet. I prefer the free market as opposed to both...free-market-capitalism being the modern economic oxymoron (contradiction in terms). Capitalism is a means to concentrate wealth...not distribute it...and even without government. I have never seen or met a capitalist who doesn't have his hand out and who doesn't love government when it suits his market i.e. profit goals. The last thing a capitalist wants...is a truly free market. All the capitalist wants is money...period. He wants 'his' market and doesn't much care how he goes about creating that...using government, ours and others to serve his profit goals. The multi-national corporation serves no community interest other than for its investors. Example: The fortune 1000 has not created one net new job in America in 50 years. Who's quote is this "Your experiment in the corporation, is the end of your experiment in democracy." Another, "You know my feelings against turning paper into money and forming a federal banking system, for if we do that, we will forever be slave to the speculators." He was quite correct...look at oil. Almost the entire history of capitalism, is immoral, i.e. crime, subtrifuge, bribes and corruption, violence even killing and monopolizing. It is only within a truly free market that jobs are created, there becomes a property right to labor (there is none now) and community is served. There's a whole lot more but we won't go there now.

philosophy -> RE: Capitalism, socialism, or a bit of both? None of the above? (4/4/2006 6:02:06 AM)
problem with the free market is that it doesnt do the necessary but non profitable jobs.........same with caitalism.........if we live as groups we need to have ways to work as groups, im afraid governemnt may be necessary...... the atthenians back in the 5th century BC had the same thoughts when they wrote their plays.......take any greek tragedy and analyze it as a conflict between polis (the state) and oikos (the family)

MrRodgers -> RE: Capitalism, socialism, or a bit of both? None of the above? (4/4/2006 6:15:35 AM)
We all, even dating back to our founding fathers, recognize a need for government. The purpose of which is the obvious needs, defense, law enforcement etc. In a true free market being without a tax on labor, we then find out what truly are the non-profits. These non-profits today can make all the profits they want (Fairfax, Va Hosp. Assoc. of all places, had $31 million in 'non'-profits in 1 year) they just can't be distributed to any 'investors' as 'profits.' That didn't stop the administrator from making $1 million a year in salary, i.e. (4 times the average surgeon) paid for by all those patients and insurance premiums. We need to end the income tax on labor, for that is the real capital. Re: A. Lincoln..."Labor comes first, labor IS capital, without labor, you have no capital." The we begin our journey back to a free market and we find out just what is a worthy 'chairy' not a tax-code non-profit.

michaelGA -> RE: Capitalism, socialism, or a bit of both? None of the above? (4/4/2006 6:19:02 AM)
being that i do not subscribe to any political party, i would have to say none of the above.

Moloch -> RE: Capitalism, socialism, or a bit of both? None of the above? (4/4/2006 6:29:57 AM)
Mike this isnt Democrap vs Republitard discussion. And I am a big fan of modified fascism, something along the lines of what they had in Starship Troopers.

Leigham -> RE: Capitalism, socialism, or a bit of both? None of the above? (4/4/2006 8:03:20 AM)
Personally Im an Anarchist. But I would never say that the world needs Anarchy. It just needs anarchists, no matter what system is in place, anarchists are the extreme rebels by with all dissenters can judge themselves.

caitlyn -> RE: Capitalism, socialism, or a bit of both? None of the above? (4/4/2006 9:15:41 AM)
Reading history, one of the most efficient systems of government was an absolute monarchy, in the hands of an effective monarch.

IronBear -> RE: Capitalism, socialism, or a bit of both? None of the above? (4/4/2006 9:57:04 AM)
Combine a good Monachy with a Feudal system and it would work well,,,, Of course there is the Tribal/Clan system.... I'd be very happy with either of those as my first choice...

Mercnbeth -> RE: Capitalism, socialism, or a bit of both? None of the above? (4/4/2006 10:08:45 AM)
How about an anarcho-syndicalist commune where people take turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week? But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting. By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs--But by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major issues. Would that work?

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Capitalism, socialism, or a bit of both? None of the above? (4/4/2006 11:06:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth How about an anarcho-syndicalist commune where people take turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week? But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting. By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs--But by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major issues. Would that work? LOL...Wink

UtopianRanger -> RE: Capitalism, socialism, or a bit of both? None of the above? (4/4/2006 11:14:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level What's the best system? Capitalism, socialism, or the western European attempt at melding the two? None of these? This crosses my mind at times, and has done so recently after watching events in France. I'd like to hear what others think. I prefer a very capitalistic society that seeks to bring out the most competitive, creative and ingenuitive of its populace. This society would have decentralized power base, with all the power centering on individual states/regions, and skeleton crew for a federal government. I would limit each states legislature to only 90 days in session a year. And a strict moratorium on new laws Politicians would essentially be part time and severely constrained by term limits. I'd reduce wage and compensation packages for bureaucrats to a point that they'd be equivalent to someone driving a school bus. I gut the penal system, fire all of the prison bureaucracy, and bring back corporal punishment and system comparable to Singapore for mid and low lever offenders. The only thing I'd regulate is natural resources essential for everyday survival. In other words.... I'd turn all the oil and power companies into public utilities. I'd allow them to make no more than a seven percent profit, with mandatory re-investment back into research and development. I could go on and on - I'll stop here before I get to my community policing concept and the wholesale gutting of police departments. LMAO!! - R Edited to add : Almost forgot.... I'd take the remnants of the current federal goverment and hand them over to Al Qaeda

Arpig -> RE: Capitalism, socialism, or a bit of both? None of the above? (4/4/2006 12:45:08 PM)
I am what I like to call a "Rational Anarchist". By that I mean that while Anarchy has enormous appeal to me, i realise it just doesn't work in any context beyond one's living room...and even then it not so well. As far as systems of government, I am Monarchist, however, I think that when the monarch dies, the parliament/council/whatever should select the next one from the appropriate heirs, much as the RCs do with their Pope (really the absolutist of absolute monarchs), heck, if its good enough for the papists, its good enough for me [;)]. I heartily dislike Gvt and politicos (as some of you may have surmised from some of my previous posts) and feel that the desire to hold public office in and of itself should disqualify one from doing so. I too think a feudal monarchy would be the best system...assuming we could avoid the excesses of absolutism...we don't really want another Caligula now. However, since I would want to be the king (or at least a Duke, "Duke Robert de Goram" has a nice ring to it don't you think?, of course behind my back i would probably be called Duke Boob [;)]), and am unlikely to get to be such, i will just pass, and will continue to do my best to ignore the gvt. and to have as little to do with them as possible, and try keep them out of my life as well.

philosophy -> RE: Capitalism, socialism, or a bit of both? None of the above? (4/5/2006 4:22:19 AM)
wish i could remember who said it, but i vaguely recall a quote along the lines of... the best government is a benevolent dictator, the worst government a malevolent one. Suppose the big question is how to tell the difference..........

Chaingang -> RE: Capitalism, socialism, or a bit of both? None of the above? (4/5/2006 4:41:41 AM)
Looking back on this thread I just wanted to comment how remarkably succinct Philosophy's first post on this topic was - short yet explanatory. I fully agree with his viewpoint. ... UtopianRanger's post came across as very much where I was at politically about 20 years ago. I think the fairest critique of that viewpoint is that it is simply too obviously based on a fantasy best case scenario that doesn't match up with reality and that it therefore lacks a humane approach to government. I consider this viewpoint as being obviously informed by Libertarianism and Objectivism. Sadly a nearly pure capitalist state would have no clear mechanism for members of the community that simply cannot make it on their own and I prefer solutions that do not presume the existence of churches to take up the slack for that particular failing. Just as a case in my point I have a neighbor near me that is both blind and that has significant facial disfigurement. His face to be as accurate as possible is monster movie scary and he may have further disfigurement beneath his clothing. I have no idea what his situation is or how he came to be that way; and while the blind can be surprisingly autonomous and productive I just very much doubt this particular gentleman is employable. I can tell you he is living in a nearly $500,000 home and has a seeing eye dog but I have no idea how he affords it - if through an insurance benefit because of his injury or because the state provides him this level of comfort. I really don't know. What I do know is that he receives assistance several times a month from people that visit him inside his home and also clean his yard - people that strike me as part of a city funded group of some kind. My speculations about this guy lean more toward ex-fireman rather than ex-crackhead with this guy because of his imposing stature and demeanor the few times I have spoken with him. Anyway, whatever way he supports himself I think he still obtains some kind of aid exclusively or on top of that - and it's necessary because there is just no way he would be hired by anyone looking as he does. Capitalism has no solutions for that guy. Insurance is a kind of mafia-style socialism - let's be clear on that too. Who will take of him and why? The bottom line is that we do have wards of the state and require a way to pay for them. Once you recognize that fact you must also recognize that the state is absolutely in the charity business - like it or not.

JohnWarren -> RE: Capitalism, socialism, or a bit of both? None of the above? (4/5/2006 5:19:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy wish i could remember who said it, but i vaguely recall a quote along the lines of... the best government is a benevolent dictator, the worst government a malevolent one. Suppose the big question is how to tell the difference.......... Yup, Plato made a big deal about how the "golden people" should rule but he failed to provide the rest of us with a diagnostic test. I'm also a bit suspicious of anyone who declares that they are "qualified" or "chosen" to rule. Sadly, the supply of people like Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus is limited.

MadamShy -> RE: Capitalism, socialism, or a bit of both? None of the above? (4/5/2006 5:33:07 AM)
olivarchy hope I spelled that right ... to be honest I just like the fantasy.. I just want to live free or die ...

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125