This is a pretty unfair poll question because there a LOT of different types of capitalism and MANY shades of socialism. It really doesn't give enough choices to make it fair. I'm not voting because of that.

I've noticed most of the polls on PF as either black or white. Since I don't think that way I seldom respond.

__________________
Cost of War in Iraq Barack Is Beautiful

Your claim would better be applied to "libertarian" capitalism. Authoritarianism, exploitation and oppression are all promulgated and promoted by the tyranny of capitalism. Know that the institution of capitalist property subverts the liberty and freedom of the working class at every turn.

Do you believe that private property is not a form of statist control when the owner of capitalistic property exercises a monopoly of power over it? Perhaps you believe that he has the right to control assets that he has gained through the "free market." Your "free market" is a creation of the state, and a direct result of state intervention in the economy, an arrangement that ought to be anathema to any legitimate "free marketer." It is state intervention that has created a state of affairs that allow some to control vast amounts of wealth and assets, while others are left with nothing.

Capitalism necessitates state intervention not only to protect the interests of the ruling class as they are asserted against the working class (for instance, protecting the "property rights" of upper class fat cats against the freedom of the working classes, but also to slow the socially destructive effects privatization has on the economy on wider society. Our little $700,000,000,000 bailout is an illustrative example of this.

I have previously mentioned a consequentialist justification for egalitarianism. I will elaborate on specific details of the analytical conception

It is morally acceptable for a government to implement some form of egalitarianism as a public policy, as I justified earlier through a consequentialist ethical standpoint (specifically utilitarianism, although I suppose it could coincide with some form of rational egoism). Furthermore, this blends in perfectly with the entitlement theory of private property, which is championed by no less a right-libertarian authority than Robert Nozick. The theory holds that private property obtained through unjust forms of acquisition are illegitimate forms of private property, and that such acquisitions must be subjected to the principle of rectification of injustice, so both are particularly relevant to the egalitarian solution.

The theory operates on the premise of three basic principles:

1. A principle of justice in acquisition-This principle deals with the initial acquisition of holdings. It is an account of how people first came to own common property, what types of things can be held, and so forth.
2. A principle of justice in transfer-This principle explains how one person can acquire holdings from another, including voluntary exchange and gifts.
3. A principle of rectification of injustice-how to deal with holdings that are unjustly acquired or transferred, whether and how much victims can be compensated, how to deal with long past transgressions or injustices done by a government, and so on.

Nozick believes that were the world entirely just, only the first two would be needed. However, he recognizes the fact that the world is not entirely just, and thus the third one is needed.

This coincides well with the consequentialist justification for wealth redistribution. Two varieties of consequentialism are particularly crucial in this equation: utilitarianism and ethical egoism, specifically the collective form of ethical egoism. The utilitarian justification for wealth redistribution is very simply that it promotes the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. It is justified through collective egoism in that most people naturally act in their economic self interest, and thus the egoistic desires of the majority will thus promote collective economic benefits.

If we hold that the majority of wealth was gained through unjust means (NOT through the actions of individual persons and businesses, but through the fundamental injustice of the system, then we have established the first and most important premise: the large majority of wealth holdings are illegitimate because they were garnered through coercive means. That is, through assistance by the state. “Pure” capitalism was most certainly not the manner in which most holdings of wealth were garnered.

Primarily, European colonialists landed in America and ravaged the lands, slaughtering many of the indigenous natives who called the place home. (This is not to suggest that all indigenous tribes were especially benevolent or conservationist, because many were not. They simply could not impose destruction on the same level as the settlers could.) With the blessing and oftentimes, mandate, of the government, the white settlers fulfilled the nationalistic and terroristic Manifest Destiny by enslaving the country. This is the primary means through which huge land tracts were unfairly and unjustly gained, and the consequence is that many Northern American tribes (and larger ethnic groups such as Mexicans) are largely disenfranchised.

Secondly, another race was captured across the Atlantic Ocean, in Africa, and transported across the great water in order to work for the dominant race. This was also condoned and supported by state intervention in the market. So the wealth of upper class elitists was also built in this manner; upon the backs of lower class workers who collectively formed the essential entirety of a race in that nation.

Also, the indentured servants (wage slaves) that lived among the European settlers are largely what the white underclass today consists of. Persons enslaved and imprisoned for petty issues such as debts in a monarchist, feudalist system would go on to form a large section of lower class poor.

So we have established that American capitalism was built on unjust and tyrannical institutes. Robert Nozick himself recognizes this in Anarchy, State, and Utopia. We are not claiming that individual persons of wealth today are responsible for this; we are merely establishing that many of the systems and institutions that permitted them to obtain and inherit their wealth were unjust and hierarchical authority structures and forms of exploitation. So, to use the simple inheritance analogy again, if John’s grandfather steals something from Jim’s grandfather and passes it down to John, John isn’t personally at fault, but that doesn’t change the fact that it still rightfully belongs to Jim.

The entitlement theory recognizes that doing nothing to remedy this allows the legacy of unjust state intervention to rule. “Free market” competition (i.e. not taxing the rich to support social programs for the poor and letting everyone “go their own way”) does not adequately address the issue of past state intervention, and allows state intervention and intrusion to be exacerbated and perpetuated through a lack of correction. Robert Nozick, the ultimate free market capitalist, recognized this. Though he ultimately opposed taxing the rich to provide social programs for the poor, he recognized that we did not live in a perfect world, and this “ideological perfection” could not be implemented. Rather, he acknowledged the benefits of rectification of justice.

Hence, a rectification of justice through wealth distribution and equitable social programs for the poor provide them with equality of opportunity that was sabotaged prior to their existence by state intervention.
The consequentialist justification for wealth distribution also complements the entitlement theory rather well. As I explained before, if a wealthy man had billions of dollars, it would be morally preferable to expropriate his assets among hundreds of thousands or millions of poor who have nothing in order to provide them with basic amenities rather than simply allowing him to sit on the money doing nothing with it. The relatively comfortably survival of millions is more important than the lucrative super wealth of one because it promotes a greater amount of happiness for a greater amount of people. (i.e. utilitarianism)

But it isn’t even necessary to utterly expropriate all the wealth of the rich and upper class. What would be morally acceptable would be to tax a significant amount of the wealth and assets of the rich in order to provide basic amenities for the poor. Nothing of moral significance is taken from the rich; it’s possible that their lucrative lifestyles are not even slightly affected as millions of dollars may be a simple drop in the bucket to the super rich. However, items of significant moral value are provided to the poor, such as basic amenities, utilities, and necessities. What is preferable: for the wealthy to possess numerous luxuries of no significant moral value for them and for the poor to starve, or for them to possess slightly less, but still all essential necessities as well as a significant amount of luxuries still, and for the poor to possess items of significant moral value to them, such as the aforementioned basic necessities?

(Continued...)

__________________
ANARCHISM, the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government — harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.
-Peter Kropotkin

(Continued...)

Even if we hadn’t established that those funds and assets had been unjustly stolen from the poor through unjust economic institutions, we could still acknowledge that unjust forms of economic coercion and exploitation had existed before, and that another, slighter form of economic coercion would not cause a horrible catastrophe. This is especially relevant considering that the consequences of this form of economic coercion would be far preferable than previous forms; they would promote the greatest good for the greatest number by robbing the rich to provide the poor with something of significant moral value while not taking such from the rich. That was if we acknowledged that it was coercion and robbery, which I do not because of the fact that it was stolen from the poor through unjust economic institutions.

That is the essential legacy of state intervention, and its negative effects upon the poor and lower classes, with the commodity fetishism of the upper classes serving as a perpetuator of the oppression of the lower class.

Examine the following images:





The former is an example of Western capitalism, the latter an example of the tyranny of state capitalism. Are these people free? Do they have liberty? Can one have liberty if one is disenfranchised by deplorable and wretched economic conditions?

It is the arrangement of massive wealth inequities under capitalism that allow those with a greater net worth to control the means of production through privatization, and thus control the wider society as well.

As I have explained time and time again here, with the same tired, old, insufficient responses, the rights of the average citizen are primarily exploited in the workplace, and experiences in the workplace shape the character of the average citizen outside of it. The hierarchy that exists in the workplace is an integral part of fascism or totalitarianism perhaps, but not of any form of legitimate freedom or liberty. The average worker receives swift retribution if he challenges the boss, stripping him of his right to free speech and expression. The average worker has no legitimate control over the functions of the workplace. It is for this reason that the employees of the workplace are divided into "management" and "labor." Such an arrangement is not a legitimate form of liberty, but is an unjustifiable form of coercion.

The capitalist claim is that because of the "wonders of the free market," the worker can exercise his right to free association by selecting a different job if he does not like the one he has. This is an absurd oversimplification of the elements of wage slavery and injustice involved in the maintenance and function of the capitalistic economy and wider society. The analogy I have cited previously functions well here. One could not have escaped statism by fleeing from Nazi Germany to the Soviet Union, and one cannot escape capitalist oppression by jumping from one particular capitalist entity to another.

Since so many here apparently know nothing of true or legitimate socialism, only of the state capitalism practiced in the Soviet Union and its satellite states, I will once again elaborate on the free and just nature of a libertarian socialist society, specifically an anarcho-communist one, and how it would function, as I have done in the past.

I favor direct democracy, and a transition to a libertarian socialist society, specifically an anarcho-communist one.

I believe it is feasible for public, direct democratic control of society to exist without a state or other centralized command structure, and that communities can be governed through decentralized, nonhierarchical, bottom up means, as the Spanish anarchist collectives were. Contrary to the false and disingenuous claims of SpankytheWhale, the Spanish anarchist collectives were heavily industrialized in some areas, and function as a sound conceptual example for the socialization of urban society.

True socialism and communism can only be implemented through decentralized means, not with a state or centralized command structure.

Public control without a state would essentially function through a federation of voluntary communes and syndicates that are democratically managed through participatory committees and workers’ councils. This would mean placing emphasis on grassroots neighborhood committees, community assemblies and other direct democratic associations rather than the centralized state.

Instead of a “top-down,” centralized governance system, an anarchist society would function using a “bottom-up,” decentralized governance system.

Neighborhood assemblies would be open to the general public, and these assemblies will be the primary (and final) governors of public policy in their jurisdiction. Public policy would be determined by direct democratic means, and delegates would be assigned to deal with the task of public policy administration. These delegates would be recallable at any time by a direct democratic vote, as opposed to the current dictatorial political system.

Various sections and aspects of the Paris Commune are an illustrative example of this sort of direct democracy in action.

Workers’ councils would be specifically intended to address workers’ needs and concerns, and would determine workplace management and administration through direct democracy, again. Control of the means of production would be granted to both these democratically managed workers’ councils, as well as to the citizens of the locality, if some of the workers are not both. The community assemblies would primarily serve as complementary features of workers’ councils for citizens who do not perform conventional work (such as parents with small children, the elderly, the disabled, the sick, etc.)

If the community’s industrial aspects are properly and efficiently managed through direct democracy, this would result in increased benefits for the workers and surrounding community. The workers themselves would be able to distribute and delegate work tasks and administration evenly among themselves, and thus form a far more efficient workforce, resulting in increased production levels and benefits, as well as decreased work hours and shortages.

Soviets initially functioned this way, until the Bolsheviks began to forcefully collectivize land and resources, and delegated control of the means of production to high-level bureaucrats rather than workers.

Through community and industrial unionism, decisions regarding the means of production and public policy affecting the wider community could be made in an efficient, direct democratic manner.

Communes would function as free, voluntary associations that would not force citizens to work or govern. Participatory committees would be freely joined and democratically managed, as opposed to the current situation, when all are forced to either work or die, because of the system of wage slavery that exists. An ideal commune would grant the minimal means of life even to those who were able but not willing to work. They would not grant them nonessential public services, however, unless they chose to participate in the work and management of the commune. As for those who were unable to work, they would still be granted full public services, as well as be permitted to have some degree of participation through community assemblies.

In the workplace itself, hierarchical authority structures would be dismantled in favor of direct democratic management. Policy creation would be given to the workers’ councils, and specific delegates and workers would be assigned to manage specific policy administrations, as is the case with the community assemblies. No longer would a separation between labor and management exist. The laborers would be the managers. Separate groups of order-givers and order-takers would no longer exist, and positions that solely emphasized management would not exist, as they would be useless and unnecessary. Through these methods, the workplace would not only function more democratically, it would function more efficiently, as workers are more intimately familiar with the conditions of the workplace than distant, unassociated managers are, and would be better qualified and capable to manage it properly.

The neighborhood and community assemblies would be the other segment of participatory committees to manage society as a whole. Towns and cities would essentially be formed from smaller neighborhood assemblies, which in turn would be federated at the regional and national levels in order to provide collective benefits to all involved. (The participatory committees would remain autonomous, of course, and could secede from larger federations if its member saw fit.) The assemblies would primarily address governance at the local level, and would ensure that all community members were provided with sufficient public services such as food, housing, healthcare, transportation, communication, etc. If there were councils or delegates that managed these assemblies, they would not possess an executive or bureaucratic status, and would primarily be intended to address specific facets of policy administration that would be too cumbersome and inefficient for management by the wider assembly.

(Continued...)

__________________
ANARCHISM, the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government — harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.
-Peter Kropotkin

(Continued...)

Assemblies would be summoned on a regular basis, as often as required or necessitated by communal interests and issues, upon the request of the communal council or the consensus of the inhabitants of the local community. Local inhabitants would deliberate and address local issues and problems, and implement direct democratic management techniques in order to address them, possibly appointing additional councils or delegates in order to address them.

Lower levels of assemblies would maintain control over higher levels, thus reversing the unjust infliction of hierarchical, top-down authority structures.

Anarcho-communism fundamentally seeks to abolish and dismantle hierarchical, authoritarian relationships, both in the social and economic realms. Communism would be implemented from the bottom-up, not the top-down. In this manner, it would be based on free association, not on forced collectivization. True and legitimate communism or socialism can never be coercive.

It is thus that capitalism hinders and constricts liberty, whether it be the Western capitalism of America, or the state capitalism of the Soviet Union. It is also thus that legitimate socialism and communism, libertarian socialism and anarcho-communism serves to safeguard and promote liberty and freedom.

__________________
ANARCHISM, the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government — harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.
-Peter Kropotkin

It is intended to reflect what one believes the "pure conception" of capitalism or socialism to be. Since capitalists believe that "pure" capitalism is based on the free market and maximum liberty for all, and socialism on tyrannical state control and management, they would vote in favor of capitalism. Since socialists (or libertarian socialists, at any rate) believe that "pure" socialism is based on free association and basic provisions for all, and capitalism is based on tyrannical private control and management, they would vote in favor of socialism.

Since I am a libertarian socialist, I recognize that free-market capitalists do not favor the current state of corporatism that holds the world in a vise grip, and do not desire such a thing, but I also believe that "pure" capitalism is not realistically possible, I voted in favor of socialism.

__________________
ANARCHISM, the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government — harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.
-Peter Kropotkin

Both. Economics has very little to do with liberty and economic determinism of any kind will be detrimental to liberty.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Socialism. Its simple really handing all the resources, property, industry and retail over to the government just isn't freedom. The government deciding what you do and controlling everything you own just isn't freedom. It can't be..

__________________
Collective? I'm sure thats easy when your not surrounded by a bunch of (*)(*)(*)(*)ing retards!!!

Capitalism by definition promotes liberty because it provides extraordinary economic growth, incentive to attain wealth, opportunity, employment and thereby the basic means for life, liberty and happiness.

Socialism on the other hand requires force that denies the possibility of extraordinary growth, creates a disincentive to attain wealth, (except for it’s governmental leadership and card carrying cronies), it stifles opportunity, it promotes disinterested robotic employment and thereby robs individualism, incentive and hope, thereby smothering the basic means for life, liberty and happiness.

If you disagree, move to Cuba or North Korea, and see if you don’t change your mind.

Capitalism is a market and subject to the oppressions found in such a market. The less government control the more anarchic and the more oppressive.
Socialism is the opposite extreme where there is too much control of the market and more control makes it more stringent and decreases the amount of resources available.

That's why I view economic models of liberty as ridiculous. The will of the people should always supercede any economic ideas about liberty. Crushing the will of the people in the name of some economic formula of liberty is antithetical to liberty.
Government that define themselves on economic ideals will always become authoritarian nightmares.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.