What do you believe would be the better choice of economic systems: True socialism in which the government owns or controls production__________________ Laissez-faire capitalism in which business has a free rein to create wealth_______________ Regulated capitalism which prevents excesses, monopolies, and fraud__________________ Capitalism with taxation distributing from the most wealthy to the least wealthy__________ http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=320452
Non-Marxisant, market socialism featuring: a basic income; some regulations; collective ownership of land and economic means of production; terms under which individuals may claim and exclusively manage properties in the People's stead, and; competing for-profit cooperatives and sole proprietorships which are owned and managed by their respective workers independent of state control (in the case of the former, leaders being chosen via systems of representative democracy).
Governments are necessary for capitalist robbery, as you know. - - - Updated - - - Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't exist. You need armies, cops and schoolteachers to keep the mugs under.
It is a moot point, in my opinion, since Capitalism is very inefficient without the Social-ism, of States and Statism. At best, capitalism is an evolution from forms of barter. Socialism is an evolution from capitalism, and all of its dependencies.
Another thing that I noticed is that the poster described socialism as government owned. That is not socialism.
I am a firm supporter of Free Market (Laissez Faire) Capitalism. I believe that the only regulations that there should be on the economy are regulations that are necessary to defend private property.
I'm a pragmatic bloke, and to be honest, laissez faire capitalism -while it is undoubtedly good at getting a good economy- doesn't really provide everyone with good living conditions. So I'd take a number three and four please. A mixed economy is the best for the people as a whole, and a corporative system is the best for national security interests.
Laissez-faire capitalism usually turns into Regulated capitalism, due to cronyism. In a perfect world, Laissez-faire capitalism is all that is needed to stimulate a healthy, growing economy and creating prosperity. Socialism has been proven, time and time again to fail the people who embrace it. In fact, it's failing us right now.
Sweden anyone? during the cold war it was one of the richest countries in the world, with a healthy and happy population, and a really big military for its size.
Indeed. Not such a beacon of prosperity anymore. Socialism has dismantled that country from prosperity to just getting by.
Which obviously - with the various big businesses robbing everyone and wanting to keep the swag - means a full scale police state. Have you ever noticed that the USA has more people in jail than Stalin - or anyone else come to that - ever managed?
Stalin just killed his opposition... that's the difference. Tens of millions of people died under Stalin.
and funnily enough we've actually moved to the right in recent times by privatisations. During the cold war we were almost always under a socialdemocratically led government, and only recently has the centre-right moderates taken the lead. Back in the days we were actually more socialist, so you aren't correct at all.
Which "days" are you referring to? Sweden used to be much more capitalist up until the 1970s. They did have a mix of Socialism/Capitalism, but that Socialism began small and kept growing and destroying the economy. In fact, it started to deteriorate during the 1960s...
Sweden under Per Albin Hansson and Tage Erlander I suppose. Both were social democrats. We have had a mixed economy -the famous and successful Sweden model- since Per Albin, and we still have it although slightly to the right now adays. Which suits me just fine.
everybody already agrees we don't have true capitalism in our republic; only the right is disingenuous enough to not call the difference, socialism.
truth is you have both. Capitalism is a market system with private property, and socialism is the collective managing of society on some level, and the redistribution of wealth.
Neither side will call it what it is. Socialism has a negative connotation, and for good reason, but we really need to be honest with ourselves if we're going to make some change in the right direction (literally and figuratively). ;]
He killed some of them, as you kill thousands a year with your pop-guns. Most of them he didn't - they were a lot more use working in camps.
Thousands a year with our pop-guns? Are you referring to war? Yes, you're right. Uncle Joe was a great guy. Totally misunderstood.
