Why Socialism Cannot Work.

History hasn’t proven anything yet. The distribution of wealth has never been achieved…the Soviet Union, which did seem hopeful at first, became on of the most brutal, rediculously corrupt regime in the world.

To me, the easiest way to explain Marxism is kind of Matrix- like (most have seen the movie, and its easier to relate to then high ideals).

The reason the Matrix could never work is that an anomoly was always created to know the truth, simply by chance.

The Matrix, being the Matrix, created the revolution inside itself, and no matter how many matrices were destroyed (the movie was…the seventh I think?), the next one always created the same conditions for an anomoly to ruin it.

Capitalism will ALWAYS create poverty, laissez faire capitalism will exacerbate this. United States capitalism, however, has created a giant infrastructe to make the populace not give a shit about this (the television, Entertainment Tonight, American Idol).

I believe that this is simply that if regular people knew histroy, and truly knew how this country operates, with corporate rule really being what is going on, they would demand a change. And no one wants that.

Even though it seems like it was long ago, Marxism is only 150 years old. Capitalism is far older, and no wanted that when it came around. So I think that it is too early to judge how Marxism fares.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
fuck it, I am just going to post what I wrote here, as it seems more relevant.

Here:

Not that I don’t appreciate your stories about getting to the American Dream and all that, but one day you will realize that you are the exception and not the rule. Some guys are just smarter than others, some are more charismatic, and these people will rise to the top.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t do a fucking thing for those of us that are not endowed with these gifts.

The great majority of men fall between a certain IQ, I bet, and a certain range of pay that they make. This is fine…if you are a white male.

The issue, at least in America, is that of the government and the bosses trying tooth and nail to destroy every movement that benifits the greater good- the lassiez faire capitalism that people talk about is the same shit that led directly to slavery, child labor, anti-union sentiment and strikenreaking, the House on Un-American Activities, COINTELPRO, and all the other wonderful things that the ruling class of the government has thrust on the country.

It is powerful men trying to, simply said, get more power.

So the solution is to create a governmental body that’ll manage everything? Who’ll they be accountable to? Wouldn’t it be better to have a very weak government so no one could use it as a club over rivals?

What infuriates me is that if you read any Early American litatuure, this is exactly what the point was of starting thi country- to destroy the hierarchy and make this a country where all men were equal.

Read Crevocuer’s “Letter from an American Farmer”, Jefferson’s “Notes on the State of Virgina”, or anything of Thomas Paine. The intent was to make men truly control their own destiny. This no longer applies.

Our huge government wouldn’t exist unless people voted it in. Why blame capitalists? Do they have more votes than the common people?

What has capitalism got us? The most powerful spot in the world? This is true, but it is now on the backs of the sweatshops that make all the things that Americans buy nowadays. There is an old saying “You can sheer a sheep many times, but skin’em only once”.

Well, we tryed to skin American labor, and they fought back with unions that can be quite powerful. So now, we send everything overseas where people will work for fifteen cents with no bathroom breaks. Do you think these people are retarded? What will happen if these people unionizes, and demand a human pay for their labor?

Where does that leave America, who’s minimum wage is not even enough for an American to remotely live off?

Look, Capital goes where the return is the highest, with minimal risk. If pay is raised in those overseas sweatshops, the return goes down and now NO ONE has a job there. What you are regaling is how capitalism develops 3rd world countries.

What has capitlism gotten us? The super rich, the middle class, and the ghettos. Ironic how the highest ones are predominantly white, while the bottom of the barrel is black.

Racism sucks. It is not cured, however, by welfare-statism, as the last 50 years shows. The ghettos need MORE capitalism, not less.

You can not talk about the rich and the poor without mentioning race. America is a racist country, who’s every aim for the past three hundred years has been keeping blacks down. Every time they organize, and a leader emerges, he is assasinated (iroically). When have you seen a KKK member assasinated? When does someone who supports the establishment get assassinated?

Was Reverend Jackson assassinated? News at 11!

Capitalism has gotten us to the point where cops patrol the white neighborhoods, watching for every black face driving a shot to shit Hond Civic in the wrong place. It leaves the blacks down in the vallies of the cities like Paterson, where legendary housing projects are where whites fear to tread, and the sheriffs avoid.

If a sub-culture rejects middle-class values and consistently votes for a party that is simply using them, how is capitalism to blame?

And then, when the blacks make it to the top, and tell of the hellish world where they have come from, Wal Mart tells them that they won’t carry the records because they are “obscene”. No shit.

What is obscene is that the educational systems in the ghettos are garbage, there is no incentive for them to do better, and they realize that the only way for them to “succeed” is in the drug trade. The Tookie Williams case is an example of this kind of thing. Brutality and physical strength is the measure of men in the poor neighborhoods, not how smart or educated one is (as in the upper classes).

So why are you surprised when they start gangs that makes millions in the drug trade, then commit brutal murders to reinforce their dominance? America has given them no other options.

God gave us each a free will. “I will not kill today.” How hard is that to say?

Sure, crime is easier than calculus. So what? The school (terrible as they are) is there. Did the gang bangers try to get out of ‘the jungle’?

OF course, they could work at McDonald’s and try to work their way out of it. But capitalism is about taking all you can for yourself- so why work at McDonald’s when you can make a grand in a night selling? Capitalism at its finest.

You are confusing anarchy with capitalism. Capitalism requires the ‘rule of law’ to secure investment. This is one reason there is very little investment in places where there is no law – like Patterson or Rwanda.

I attack Conservative all the time for their “head in the sand” mentality. They come back with, “Well I made it” Good for you. Here’s your monument. But very few of you have any idea what is really going on in the streets, and the mentality that the poor have.

Instead of starting wars that suck up billions, why don’t we dump that money into education, and get these kids in the streets educated? Why not get them into college? That is where the good can be done. Not telling everyone to fuck off, when you are (as I am), essentially, a white male who has controlled everything since the inception of civilization.

Women, minorities, and all others who are not white males have started off on the bottom rung since this country was started. Capitalism has done nothing but exagerrate the differences, and make them larger.

Tell it to the soccer mom in her SUV. Tell it to my wife, a tenured prof at a university. If you think women and minorities are worse off under capitalism, then you need to speak to the moms in North Korea, who watch THEIR children die of starvation.

Now, I don’t know if socialism is the answer to the world’s problems. For all I know, it could be an entirely different economic system that rises in the future. But all I can tell you is that if the new economic system doesn’t somehow benefit the moneyed classes, then it will be crushed.
[/quote]

Except for most of it, good post!!

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
History hasn’t proven anything yet. The distribution of wealth has never been achieved…the Soviet Union, which did seem hopeful at first, became on of the most brutal, rediculously corrupt regime in the world.[/quote]

And that may very well be the problem with Communism. It opens the door to “brutal, rediculously corrupt regimes.” Wherever Marxism has been tried, there is always the exact same outcome.

[quote]
To me, the easiest way to explain Marxism is kind of Matrix- like (most have seen the movie, and its easier to relate to then high ideals).

The reason the Matrix could never work is that an anomoly was always created to know the truth, simply by chance.

The Matrix, being the Matrix, created the revolution inside itself, and no matter how many matrices were destroyed (the movie was…the seventh I think?), the next one always created the same conditions for an anomoly to ruin it.[/quote]

So, the Marxist theory of history is the Matix? and the anomoly is what exactly? (in case you can’t tell, those are real questions. I’m not being sarcastic or anything like that)

[quote]
Capitalism will ALWAYS create poverty, laissez faire capitalism will exacerbate this. United States capitalism, however, has created a giant infrastructe to make the populace not give a shit about this (the television, Entertainment Tonight, American Idol).[/quote]

In my opinion, poverty is a human condition and the best we can hope for is to minimize it. Free market economics, IMO, does that best.

[quote]
I believe that this is simply that if regular people knew histroy, and truly knew how this country operates, with corporate rule really being what is going on, they would demand a change. And no one wants that.[/quote]

True. I just dont think Communism is the answer.

[quote]
Even though it seems like it was long ago, Marxism is only 150 years old. Capitalism is far older, and no wanted that when it came around. So I think that it is too early to judge how Marxism fares. [/quote]

I guess we’ll have to wait and see…

Where - in a modern society - has communism or socialism worked? Ok, China, Russia, they blow, look at Japan , Hong Kong , Singapore how wealthy they are comparatively . The more capitalist china gets the richer it gets. Europe’s socialist countries are languishing so they aren’t much of an arguement.

Now i do agree that socialism/communism will be more equitable. I fully agree with that but will it be more effective as far as GDP/person or total production or having a teched out populace?

[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
Where - in a modern society - has communism or socialism worked? China, Russia, they blow, look at Japan , Hong Kong , Singapore how wealthy they are comparatively . The more capitalist china gets the richer it gets.

Now i do agree that socialism/communism will be more equitable. I fully agree with that but will it be more effective as far as GDP/person or total production or having a teched out populace?
[/quote]

They are more equitable – every person starves; except the brutes who foisted such things on innocents. It is for those brutes that God, my God, created a Hell.

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:

However, although nominal wages were falling in the United States from 1865-1897, real wages were rising, and there didn’t seem to be a problem with over-production or with capital investment. Marx’s own data showed rising real wages. Recognizing that things weren’t going as predicted, Lenin (Vladimir Ulyanov, 1870-1924) proposed that colonialism and imperialism were relieving the stress on capitalism and had temporarily derailed history: Colonies were a safety valve for excess capital and over-production; and the exploitation of colonies enabled the capitalists to buy off the proletariat at home. Lenin’s own data showed that most foreign investment was in other capitalist countries, and it is hard to imagine how an impoverished colonial population could buy things that the proletariat back home couldn’t afford. Nevertheless, Lenin’s theory at least addressed the issue…
[/quote]

This passage immediately got me thinking upon our current “globalization.” Neo-capitalism (trans-national corportaion control) has allowed all areas of the globe to feel the effects of this type of capitalism.

I am cetainly not against the idea of capitalism we are all taught in our schools. Ideally, equal footing is allowed for all to compete. T-Nation is a capitalistic corporation, which I find of great value in reading daily.

They offer their insight and forums to promote their supplements. Most readers find their supplements of value and they make a profit. I am not hurt by this interaction and support it everytime I (and you) post. This does not concern me.

What does concern me is the monster of a trans-national corporation (TNC). They evade taxes easily. Under U.S. law they have vast protections but little consequences. The SEC is considered a lapdog in the legal field.

Also, with our current political campaign contributition laws, are there many here that do not believe our politicians are strongly swayed due to these powerful influences?

Is the TNC inheritantly evil? It is just a legal idea, as all corporations are; I fail to see how that is evil. However, as all business students know, the number one concern for all capitalist corporations is increasing shareholder value. Actually, CEO’s can be held legally responsible if they do not place the shareholder’s interest ahead of everything else.

This system may benefit you personally (low prices at Wal-Mart, even though you do subsidize their workers’ health care through state and federal plans), but it does cause unrest across large swatches of the population (poor pay, environmental damage, etc: externalities.)

While worker unrest can be violently shut down (as in Nigeria) or populists can rise to power (Argentina), I do see the limitiations of the power of the TNCs.

This is just the cycle of history. The powerful attempt to consolidate their power, eventually too many are shut out, then violent upheavle arises. It doesn’t always have to be violent, but revolutions tend to be nasty. I believe we are quite a few generations from that happening on a global scale (god knows, I don’t want to be here for that) but, eventually, capitalism, too, will run its course.

[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
Where - in a modern society - has communism or socialism worked? Ok, China, Russia, they blow, look at Japan , Hong Kong , Singapore how wealthy they are comparatively . The more capitalist china gets the richer it gets. Europe’s socialist countries are languishing so they aren’t much of an arguement.

Now i do agree that socialism/communism will be more equitable. I fully agree with that but will it be more effective as far as GDP/person or total production or having a teched out populace?
[/quote]

Um, maybe I took for granted that people know this but, you understand that the United States has a mixed economy, right?

The federal government may have less control over the economy han those of Scandinavian nations, but the US is far from being purely capitalist. Aside from all the taxes and social services, think about all the tariffs, embargos, and trade regulations.

That is realism, not free trade. Add to that the huge sector (and I mean huge) of the economy that is composed of military production, and what you have is far from a free market economy.

[quote]Dorso wrote:

Um, maybe I took for granted that people know this but, you understand that the United States has a mixed economy, right?

[/quote]

Tell me where i said that the US was 100% or even close to being a pure capitalist state? That said we are better than many of the asian , European , and other countries. We have found that capitalism has worked for us.

Truly , in many other countries , their ecnomies are so out of whack that the poor have clamored for socialism.

Still , when someone can present to me that it would be effective in other areas besides equality of fact ( not just equality of oppurtunity as america tries hard to provide) like increasing total production or GDP/capita like i mentioned in a previous post then i will be convinced that it is effective and so will a lot of people.

Until this day the socialists are just blowing a bunch of hot air.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

To me, the easiest way to explain Marxism is kind of Matrix- like (most have seen the movie, and its easier to relate to then high ideals).
[/quote]

Does anybody feel more educated now that we have discussed socialism in a gentalmanly manner?

Headhunter, this is why I don’t rip the post quote by quote- it never comes out right. Rehrase what you wrote and I will answer it.

LBRTNRN, we agree on most social issues, which is that the people should be left well enough alone. However, I don?t understand how socialistic governments become oppressive and capitalistic ones don?t.

You should be among the first to note that free speech is among the first destroyed among capitalism, as they will do anything to preserve what they have. The fact that all the anti-leftist things that government has instated should disturb you, not make you at peace.; for the social policies that you stand for are in direct contradiction to the economic policies that I hold.

Is not crushing what I say a violation of free speech, and therefore not a crushing of your beliefs? And no other government in the world will be as corrupt as the one that is governed by money- the USSR became corrupt by the same things our government today is! Does this not say something about our government? Namely, that we are not much different than they are?

What I was saying about Marxist theory was aimed towards the general populace. Most people have seen the Matrix, but many have no idea what Marx wrote in 1848. So the Matrix is a better avenue. The anomaly is a socialistic uberman (as contrary as that may seem). It is the man, or men, that realize that the current system cannot go on the way it is, for it is wrong and deceiving.

Neo, in the Matrix, was the one who could take this to the level where it would be recognized for what it is- a fake world of consumerism. The theory of history is the Matrix- based on the ruling class running everything, and the working class, for the most part, being ignorant of what was going on around them, not too mention their potential for changing that which was around them.

Capitalism, combined with racism, has made the state of the nation today. Both parties claim to address it, but neither ever does, and things remain the same. The state of the inner cities today is a benchmark of capitalism- a failed education system, people with no goals, and a lower class angry at the world.

When the ghettos explode in violence, everyone says, ?That?s such a shame?. But they never dig any deeper to figure why this happens, and what economic and racist factions put them where they are.

[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

To me, the easiest way to explain Marxism is kind of Matrix- like (most have seen the movie, and its easier to relate to then high ideals).

Does anybody feel more educated now that we have discussed socialism in a gentalmanly manner?[/quote]

Is this a sarcastic remark? I’m trying to relate it to something most folks would know.

First lets get a few things straight. Socialism and capitalism is best described as a range, and never absolutes. The more control the government exerts, the more socialist, and the less, the more capitalist.

Either extreme is truly not desired. We do in fact need the government, but too much government is not a good thing.

LBRTRN did have a really good post on this subject. What many people do not know is that socialism was truly designed to hold things in place until true communism occurred. This is actually a utopian dream where there is no government, and things work perfectly.

It was created during a time of growing pains of capitalism. Capitalism works, but it is not instantaneous. The power truly is in the hands of the people, and that is power.

Now I see FI throwing out racism being connected to our Republic, which is funny after stating that some people cannot achieve because they are inferior in some way. (Lower IQ, and lack of charisma.) I have seen some ugly dumbfucks who made it on their own, so this is obviously not true.

China must be mentioned here, because they did institute the perfect system of equality where everyone regardless of who they were, what the did, or even if they worked, received the exact same wage. Absolutely fair. What happened? A third of the population quit working.

People who support socialism actually do care about people, and so do the people who support capitalism. We must understand that. We all want a better society. Lenin did not want Stalin in power, and said so before he died. But this illustrates the main weakness in socialist structure, and that is that power becomes centered, and the person at the head becomes very powerful.

To make this better to understand this, a government is an organization similar to a business, so making a government very powerful is like making Wal-Mart the government, and making all business a part of Wal-Mart. Sound like a good idea? I didn’t think so.

Anyway with so much power the leader naturally becomes the emperor, whether he is called that or not.

The next problem is the financial structure. Are people rewarded or not? If a person will not work, what happens to them? If a person invents something, what is their benefit? Why would anyone care about advancing anything if there was no reward?

Start rewarding people, and suddenly they are no longer equal.

The true reason that capitalism works (and I have said it before) is that it matches nature. Survival of the fittest. And preferably unlike last time do not try to make it out to be some sort of racial statement, it is not about people, it is about business.

The better business will thrive, while the bad businesses will fail. Which business will succeed? Bob’s house of Steak, or Clem’s house of Donkey feces on toast?

Contrary to the crap propaganda out there about success, if you do not treat the customer fairly, they will go to the competition. You screw the customer, you lose the customer.

The same with employees. If you treat those employees fairly, they will work harder then if they hate you.

Is it perfect? No, but that is why there is this debate. We are actually trying to make it better through the combination of government and capitalism. Over the years America has been tweaked both for the better and for the worse.

We abolished slavery, gave women the vote, and made drinking illegal. (That last one didn’t last for some reason. Go figure.)

During the era of Marx, there was a big theory that people would only work until they had their needs met. Once they had those needs met, they would not want to work anymore, and production would come to a halt. Boy was that wrong.

Now I must ask what is poverty in America? The poor actually do eat, and they do in fact have places to live for the most part. Of those that don’t, most are drunks, and drug addicts. Less permanently are people temporarily displaced, and interestingly this is most often due to a break up with a spouse, or boy/girlfriend.

Locally they did a survey of this, and I almost shit a brick when I found out that a third of the homeless in our area were actually covered by health insurance.

In America the poverty threshold is considered $19,307 in income for a family of 4. That is over $9 an hour, and only one parent working. Kind of a generous number for poverty if you ask me.

And a full 12.7% of Americans have to live this “terrible” existence. (Although this doesn’t take into account reduced school lunches for the kids, earned income credit, and anything else people can and do qualify for.)

Once again I am not putting down the poor. I am questioning the idea that almost $20,000 a year is really poverty.

Also of question is how many of these people are in their late teens to early 20’s? Just starting out? Are non-working and part time working college students included here? People just starting out can really skew the numbers. (I tried searching for this data, but they don’t break up the numbers like that.)

If $20,000 for a family of four is poverty in the US, I say that is damn good. (For poverty that is.)

There are international publications that defined what poverty was based solely on median income, and anyone who made 50% or less then the median for the country was considered in poverty, which actually made the US 17%, and Russia less the 3%. In 2003 the per capita income (I could not find the median) was $2,610. I did find data that said real income for Russians increased double digits over two years. (I think 2002 and 2003, but don’t quote me.)

Again if that is poverty, capitalism must be working.

The Mage’s post is right on the mark.

My original premise was that: if a Socialist government starts managing an economy, they will retain power only so long as they make the people happy. How are people made happy? Jobs, health care, low/no crime, so forth.

It is my contention that this MUST stifle innovation, especially ‘earth-shaking’ ones. The inventor will create turmoil, changing industries, ‘upset the apple cart’. This would create unemployment. The Socialist government MUST prevent that.

The only way to prevent change, to lock everything in place is via the Socialist government evolving into a Fascist one. (One of the first things the Nazis did was to close all small businesses worth < 40,000 marks – if memory serves me). To preserve the status quo, Socialism must evolve into Fascism.

When Marx talked about ‘the dictatorship of the Proletariat’, he REALLY, REALLY, REALLY meant a dictatorship. He knew the results of what would happen if anyone took his ideas seriously; and many were led down this ‘utopian’ path.

Seeing the 20th century results of his ‘philosophy’, how can anyone defend him?

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:

command economy <> socialism.[/quote]

As I said, I’m no political economist, but my impression was that a command economy can exist without socialism. One refers to how the leaders are appointed and the other refers to how business is regulated/conducted.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
thabigdon24 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

To me, the easiest way to explain Marxism is kind of Matrix- like (most have seen the movie, and its easier to relate to then high ideals).

Does anybody feel more educated now that we have discussed socialism in a gentalmanly manner?

Is this a sarcastic remark? I’m trying to relate it to something most folks would know.[/quote]

No. Sorry if it came across that way, just seems like something intellectuals like to talk about. I’ve had several conversations about marxism as a college student. In some environments its a popular thing.

[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:

…I’ve had several conversations about marxism as a college student. In some environments its a popular thing.[/quote]

Marxism is very popular on college campuses. Colleges are all about theory, and it seems theoretically logical. Yet practice does not bore this out.

The reason colleges are so liberal is because of the enticing theories, but as was quoted in a Testosterone article years ago, education is no replacement for experience, and experience is no replacement for education.

The professors who teach this stuff often have never left their campuses. They went from college student straight to assistant to instructor to professor. Theory does not always work in the real world.

Kind of like I can read everything written about mixed martial arts, but that alone would never qualify me to fight in the ring.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

LBRTNRN, we agree on most social issues, which is that the people should be left well enough alone.[/quote]

That we do. Further proof that the Left-Right paradigm is bullshit.

[quote]
However, I don?t understand how socialistic governments become oppressive and capitalistic ones don?t.[/quote]

I didnt mean to imply that they dont. Capitalistic countries do become oppressive…including our own.

Before I go on, I want to make it clear that just because a country utilizes a capitalistic system doent make it a free country. It may be economically free but that doenst make it free. You and I have talked before about how we think the Dems and Repubs are two heads of the same coin. In much the same way, I see economic freedom and political freedom as two heads of the same coin. Take away one, and it becomes much easier to take away the other.

You said earlier that the USSR started off good but decayed into a brutal dictatorship. I agree with you 100%…and thats the problem. In order for any central authority to redistribute wealth and/or construct an artificial economic equality, it must have a certain level of power over the individual.

As you know, power tends to attract the wrong type of individual…especially when that power opens up the pocket of every single man, woman, and child. Once government has ultimate power over a person’s capital, it becomes all the more easy to take away their personal freedoms and vice versa. And once government is given power, it is seldom given back.

[quote]
You should be among the first to note that free speech is among the first destroyed among capitalism, as they will do anything to preserve what they have.[/quote]

That couldnt be further from the truth.
How many Moveon.orgs did the USSR have? How many protesters hold up signs saying, “Castro is evil” in Cuba? How many anti-Mao opinion pieces do you think are written in China?

Just as a side note, I recently saw a c-span interview with a Chinese woman who had her book, which is critical of Mao’s reign, banned in China.

[quote]
The fact that all the anti-leftist things that government has instated should disturb you, not make you at peace.[/quote]

Give me a few examples and I’ll probably agree with you. Keep in mind, I think this country does a lot of things contrary to the principles of liberty. Including many of its economic policies.

[quote]
for the social policies that you stand for are in direct contradiction to the economic policies that I hold.[/quote]

So the social policies I stand for (freedom) are in direct contradiction to the economic policies you hold (socialism)? If thats what you meant, I couldnt agree more.

Again, big socialized government doesnt help the matter. See France if you dont believe me. It was government sponsered racisim that helped put blacks where they are and its government that has helped keep them there ever since. Go read George Washington Carver or Booker T Washington…they certainly dont advocate big government as a solution.

[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
Dorso wrote:

Um, maybe I took for granted that people know this but, you understand that the United States has a mixed economy, right?

Tell me where i said that the US was 100% or even close to being a pure capitalist state? That said we are better than many of the asian , European , and other countries. We have found that capitalism has worked for us.

Truly , in many other countries , their ecnomies are so out of whack that the poor have clamored for socialism.

Still , when someone can present to me that it would be effective in other areas besides equality of fact ( not just equality of oppurtunity as america tries hard to provide) like increasing total production or GDP/capita like i mentioned in a previous post then i will be convinced that it is effective and so will a lot of people.

Until this day the socialists are just blowing a bunch of hot air.[/quote]

I wasn’t saying you did. It’s just that the examples of “socialim” you and most other people provided don’t include successful example’s, such as the Norway, Sweden, and the US.

However, to say that “capitalism has worked for us” is to make the same mistake I was talking about. We have a mixed economy. TF, if you think ours is an example of a successful economy, shouldn’t you say that a mixed economy, with a degree of socialism and capitalism, has worked for us? And isn’t that an arguement againt pure capitalism rather than for it?

Also, last time I checked (which was a while ago) the USA was about 7th in GDP/capita. I think either Denmark or Sweden was ahead of us.

This whole thread sucks.

There is no utopia. Not even capitalism will do that job.

Whether anyone likes it or not, the government, in every free country, is already applying socialistic principles.

The thing we need to realize is that portions of various systems have a lot to offer. Combining the best parts of several may perhaps provide something approaching the best we can get.

For example, from capitalism, we see that providing incentive to the people is very important. However, there will always be limits on this… we don’t want people trading nuclear waste products on the street corners in the name of profits.

Systems have been put in place in all capitalist systems to protect the populace and/or the environment from the greedy end of this continuum.

Perhaps from socialism we have found that providing public education for children, instead of expecting them to work as soon as they are able, allows people to make choices about their lives, to acquire skills and help guide their success. This is not a purely capitalistic situation either, but I doubt many would argue against education.

Again, I’ll raise national defence, which isn’t really provided for in a purely capitalist situation. I’m pretty sure that most people understand the value of contributing to national defence.

No, the problem, which headhunter continues to cry about, is that his money is being taken and applied not only to these purposes, but towards supporting some of the poor in some way. Those lazy slobs that do nothing but take his money.

For this, socialism is evil and reduces the amount of financial incentive available to him. Boo hoo.