NationStates Jolt Archive

Which economic system do you prefer, socialism or capitalism? Really one of the base questions anybody could ever ask, but I'm sure this'll evolve into something much more fun.

Well, as Marx pointed out, capital economies are inherently destructive and wasteful, and will inevitably destroy themselves because of their flaws.

Capitolism.

*seals flame resistant doors*

A mix, extremism is stupid.

Capitalist economic system with socialist statist controls.

A mix, extremism is stupid.

seconded

Well, as Marx pointed out, capital economies are inherently destructive and wasteful, and will inevitably destroy themselves because of their flaws.

What he said.

Given the choice between the two? Capitalism.

Personally? A mix, with more emphasis on capitalism than socialism.

Capitalism, thanks. ;)

Though, sure, with a few failsafes, which themselves might be called "socialistic" in isolation, such as medicare/-caid, Social Security, reasonable anti-trust regulation, etc. In other words, Capitalism as we generally define it.

Capitalism, thanks. ;)

Though, sure, with a few failsafes, which themselves might be called "socialistic" in isolation, such as medicare/-caid, Social Security, reasonable anti-trust regulation, etc.
Isn't it a mix, then? Even the most capitalist economies these days have taxes and usually some form of public healthcare or education, after all. If a mixed option is provided, wouldn't that imply that the capitalism and socialism options refer to anarchocapitalism and communism?

Capitalism with some government regulation regarding monopolies, environment standards, etc, a public education service and somewhat of a universal healthcare system IS socialism. So what is this poll asking exactly? Command economy (a la Communism) or free market, fully private capitalism? or a mix (socialism)?

Currently the poll is asking between a free market and a freer market.

Isn't it a mix, then? Even the most capitalist economies these days have taxes and usually some form of public healthcare or education, after all. If a mixed option is provided, wouldn't that imply that the capitalism and socialism options refer to anarchocapitalism and communism?

I'm assuming a definition of Capitalism that considers those things I mentioned, which we've mostly been taught to accept as fundamental to our economic system. Likewise, any definition of Socialism as it's practiced will probably include elements that might be considered Capitalistic.. I didn't take the "Capitalism" poll option to mean absolute laissez-faire economics, which aren't really a plausible option, in any case.

Capitalism with some government regulation regarding monopolies, environment standards, etc, a public education service and somewhat of a universal healthcare system IS socialism. So what is this poll asking exactly? Command economy (a la Communism) or free market, fully private capitalism? or a mix (socialism)?

Currently the poll is asking between a free market and a freer market. Silly Albertan. The main principle behind Socialism is the the general public owns the means of production. The government setting a bunch of regulations, and running a couple industries does not constitute public ownership. Think more along the lines of the public sector making up the majority of the economy, or unions owning the industries they work for etc.

Silly Albertan. The main principle behind Socialism is the the general public owns the means of production. The government setting a bunch of regulations, and running a couple industries does not constitute public ownership. Think more along the lines of the public sector making up the majority of the economy, or unions owning the industries they work for etc.

Then that would be a lot closer to a command economy (read: communism) than socialism, which is usually defined as a middle-of-the-road mix between the two that I described above.

Capitalism

A mix, extremism is stupid.daily rape, or no rape? Well how about weekly rape? Wouldn't want to be extreme now:rolleyes:
Extreme centrism is a pretty amusing form of extremism.

Capitalism with restraint's to make sure monopolies don't exist, and to make laws that prevent companies from having horrible working conditions and environmental standards.

Anything else, Laizzez fair with little government regulation, unless its needed for the benefit of the economy and people.

Then that would be a lot closer to a command economy (read: communism) than socialism, which is usually defined as a middle-of-the-road mix between the two that I described above.Socialism includes communism.

Both, or neither, depending.

Capitalism, up to the privatization of the creation, enforcement and interpretation of law.

daily rape, or no rape? Well how about weekly rape? Wouldn't want to be extreme now:rolleyes:
Extreme centrism is a pretty amusing form of extremism.

Fallacious argument.

Socialism haven't been proven wrong, neither have capitalism.

Rape have been proven wrong (by consensus).

Capitalism, I do not claim to be an ancap, but I do think that private control over the economy is the better way to get things done.

Fallacious argument.

Socialism haven't been proven wrong, neither have capitalism.

Rape have been proven wrong (by consensus).
Consensus proves nothing wrong. Democracy does not determine truth on any level. I can claim that all 3 things are wrong or right based upon my beliefs and values. I definitely would not claim that rape is right, but I think that your argument is the fallacious one.

Rape have been proven wrong (by consensus).

It's fallacious to say that something is wrong just because of consensus. Consensus is not at all immutable or constant; by its unstable nature it cannot prove anything. If consensus did make things right, then that would mean a president whose poll numbers go from 50% to 60% is now 1/5 more correct than before, even if he's just doing the same thing.

A mix, extremism is stupid.Yeh, 'cuz welfare mercantilism isn't more destructive than planned or market capitalism...

Yes. That was sarcasm. Either's better than what we've got now. Participatory economics would be better still, but sadly it's too inoffensive an idea not to offend 99.9% of everyone. Probably because it's not a brand yet, and we all know that if it ain't got name recognition going for it, it's just no good.

This thread reeks of stupid.

It's fallacious to say that something is wrong just because of consensus. Consensus is not at all immutable or constant; by its unstable nature it cannot prove anything. If consensus did make things right, then that would mean a president whose poll numbers go from 50% to 60% is now 1/5 more correct than before, even if he's just doing the same thing.

Yeah, I was avoiding this by saying "consensus", but tell me this, is Free Outer Eugenia fallacious or not?

Yeah, I was avoiding this by saying "consensus", but tell me this, is Free Outer Eugenia fallacious or not?

I don't think so, no. He's pointing out that one fallacy which name escapes me but has something to do with centrism. Anyway, it probably would have been better to explain why extremism in this case would be bad.

Capitalism. Better dead than red I always say.

Capitalism is all about self-determination. When I think of socialism I think of that scene from "Best of Both Worlds".

"I have nothing to say to you. And I will resist you with my last ounce of strength!"
"Strength is irrelevant. Resistance is futile. We wish to improve ourselves. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service ours."
"Impossible! My culture is based on freedom and self-determination!"
"Freedom is irrelevant. Self-determination is irrelevant. You must comply."
"We would rather die."
"Death is irrelevant. Your archaic cultures are authority driven..."

*shudder*

Anyway, it probably would have been better to explain why extremism in this case would be bad.Because extremism in this case would allow the sustem in question to function as intended, instead of turning to complete shit.

And we all know that if it's not malfunctioning, it's just no good...

I have to stop reading this thread. I'm getting dumber by the second.

*shudder*

Incidentally, that's how I think of capitalism.

I don't think so, no. He's pointing out that one fallacy which name escapes me but has something to do with centrism. Anyway, it probably would have been better to explain why extremism in this case would be bad.

I stand corrected then.

Anarchist socialism for me.

I'm proudly extremist on this topic.

Incidentally, that's how I think of capitalism.

As Borg totalitarian collectivism?

I dunno about that. Capitalism isn't collectivist.

As Borg totalitarian collectivism?

I dunno about that. Capitalism isn't collectivist.If what we have now is what you call capitalism, I don't see how it's not?

Socialism. All the checks and balances in the world can't fix the economic and social flaws in capitalism.

Capitalism isn't collectivist.

"Collectivism" is a mostly meaningless scare word, at least as it's used these days.

I have no desire to be a cog in anyone's machine. Corporate capitalist, statist, or whatever.

This thread reeks of stupid.
Don't a lot of them? I will agree to some extent.

Socialism. All the checks and balances in the world can't fix the economic and social flaws in capitalism.
Capitalists would argue the same thing. If you just look, you see a scary reflective quality here.

Don't a lot of them? I will agree to some extent.I'm glad I'm not the only one stating the obvious here.Capitalists would argue the same thing. If you just look, you see a scary reflective quality here.And that would be other 50% of the reason this thread's stupid.

"Collectivism" is a mostly meaningless scare word, at least as it's used these days.

Well, I use it to mean an economic/political system advocating or characterized by collective control, especially over production and distribution. Under which you can clearly show that capitalism is not collectivist, whilest the Borg society was collectivist to the extreme (going so far as to collectively control individuals and their every action.)

And that would be other 50% of the reason this thread's stupid.
What do you mean? I perhaps phrased my position wrong. I meant that such might be a capitalist argument against a socialist system. No matter how you set it up, you won't be able to put together the desired power structure in order to enact plans properly. Meh, whatever, the number of socialist vs capitalist arguments on the internet is ridiculous.

Incidentally, that's how I think of capitalism.
Then I will resist you with my last ounce of strength! My culture is based on freedom and self-determination! I would rather die than submit to the collective.

Well, I use it to mean an economic/political system advocating or characterized by collective control, especially over production and distribution. Under which you can clearly show that capitalism is not collectivist, whilest the Borg society was collectivist to the extreme (going so far as to collectively control individuals and their every action.)Depends on what you call collective control and capitalism.

Syndicalist ParEcon, for example, is collectivist, but decentralised. The ugly bastard we have today & usually call capitalism, is clearly centralist, but perhaps not collectivist in the traditional sense, as the entities manipulating the economy through the state, aren't collectivist in nature - much like past and present centralised collectivist economies haven't actually been collectivist, just centralized.What do you mean? I perhaps phrased my position wrong. I meant that such might be a capitalist argument against a socialist system. No matter how you set it up, you won't be able to put together the desired power structure in order to enact plans properly. Meh, whatever, the number of socialist vs capitalist arguments on the internet is ridiculous.No, no. I was agreeing with you. It's completely true that both statist capitalist and socialist economic systems can & do level the same criticism against each other. The reason it's stupid, is because both are so obviously correct in their criticisms, it blows the mind they can't both see it.

Under which you can clearly show that capitalism is not collectivist

In a manner of speaking, sure.

Instead of having collective endeavours controlled collectively, they are instead controlled individually.

So? To the individual who happens to not be one of the powerful few, the consequences are mostly the same... or worse, because she is denied the democratic participation that might protect her freedom.

.No, no. I was agreeing with you. It's completely true that both statist capitalist and socialist economic systems can & do level the same criticism against each other. The reason it's stupid, is because both are so obviously correct in their criticisms, it blows the mind they can't both see it.
Right, it is pretty ridiculous on some level. We do love our favored ideas though and tend to react to that which we believe we do not agree with as if it were poison. Meh, that is life and ideology though. What can really be done about it?

A mix between those two is best. Capitalism is needed to create jobs and to benefit the economy while the socialism would take form in universal-helthcare, social security, environmental standards and so on. The goverment should also be active in the ecoomy in order to keep it stable.

In a manner of speaking, sure.

Instead of having collective endeavours controlled collectively, they are instead controlled individually.


The very fact that you seem to imply things currently controlled by individuals are "collective endeavours" shows you to fall in line with the collectivist approach, which again makes me wonder why you'd see capitalists as being collectivists like Borg.


So? To the individual who happens to not be one of the powerful few, the consequences are mostly the same... or worse, because she is denied the democratic participation that might protect her freedom.

Ah yes, the powerful few. How we hate them. They control the world, those Jews. I mean capitalists.

Anyway, the consequences are vastly different because "democratic participation" doesn't overrule my individuality in one case, and where it does - with haughty self-righteousness - in collectivist structures.

In a manner of speaking, sure.

Instead of having collective endeavours controlled collectively, they are instead controlled individually.

So? To the individual who happens to not be one of the powerful few, the consequences are mostly the same... or worse, because she is denied the democratic participation that might protect her freedom.
What makes you think that democracy will protect you from anything? Democracy is the will of the numerically superior imposed on all. It is tyrany by majority, by the collective. In a true democracy, if 51 of 100 people decide they reall hate Bob and want him to die then he'll swing or be shot. It is mob rule, herd hegemony, and herds have this annoying tendancy to charge over cliffs when startled. And trample any who stand against them no matter how rational they may be.

Capitalism is all about personal choice. You must choose where to work, in what feild, and for who.

Rule 62: "The riskier the road, the greater the profit." The benefits of more challenging work drive people to accomplish more and to take greater risks.

Adversity breeds innovation and by keeping that adversity purely economic you can avoid atrocities like the slavery and genocide that all too often accompany hot wars.

The very fact that you seem to imply things currently controlled by individuals are "collective endeavours"

Some things are obviously collective endeavours.

Like, say, a corporation.

Ah yes, the powerful few. How we hate them. They control the world, those Jews. I mean capitalists.

Is that the best you can do? Really? :rolleyes:

Anyway, the consequences are vastly different because "democratic participation" doesn't overrule my individuality in one case, and where it does - with haughty self-righteousness - in collectivist structures.

The overruling of individuality is either in the nature of society itself, or in the nature of the modern economy. The best that can be hoped for is democratic participation.

Democracy is the will of the numerically superior imposed on all. It is tyrany by majority, by the collective. In a true democracy, if 51 of 100 people decide they reall hate Bob and want him to die then he'll swing or be shot. It is mob rule, herd hegemony, and herds have this annoying tendancy to charge over cliffs when startled. And trample any who stand against them no matter how rational they may be.

All of which means, of course, that instead of deciding for ourselves on a collective basis, we should let these decisions be made by the super-rich.

Because they, of course, have our best interests at heart. (Or at least theirs, which will magically become ours... if we obey with sufficient eagerness, anyway.)

Capitalism is all about personal choice. You must choose where to work, in what feild, and for who.

Surprising as you may find it, socialism offers you the same.

Which economic system do you prefer, socialism or capitalism? Really one of the base questions anybody could ever ask, but I'm sure this'll evolve into something much more fun.

Socialism is a politcal theroy. I think you mean Capitalism vs Market Socialism or a planned/central economic system.

Some things are obviously collective endeavours.

Like, say, a corporation.

Not really. A corporation can have just one individual in it, hard as that is to believe.


Is that the best you can do? Really? :rolleyes:

I don't think the particular quote I was responding to required anything more.


The overruling of individuality is either in the nature of society itself, or in the nature of the modern economy. The best that can be hoped for is democratic participation.

That's a cop-out. "Society overrules individuals sometimes... so it's okay to have it overrule individuals all the time, as long as there's a vote." The best that can be hoped for is the rights of an individual not be tromped on by the state. Democracy can sorta help that, but all too often just contribute.

Well, as Marx pointed out, capital economies are inherently destructive and wasteful, and will inevitably destroy themselves because of their flaws.

Marx and his followers thought that Communism would face off against Capitalism and Communism would win...

A mix of both would be my choice. But if I had to pick only one then it would be Capitalism without a doubt. Second would be nothing at all actually.

Not really. A corporation can have just one individual in it, hard as that is to believe.

Fine. Companies that extensively hire labor are collective endeavours. It really amounts to the same thing.

That's a cop-out. "Society overrules individuals sometimes... so it's okay to have it overrule individuals all the time, as long as there's a vote."

That's not what I said, sorry.

The individual freedom denied to individuals under socialism is denied under any modern economy. That IS what I said.

The best that can be hoped for is the rights of an individual not be tromped on by the state.

So they can be tromped on by anyone else?

For the thousandth time:Socialism is not a system of government!

Nor is it an economic system-

It is- and only is a domestic system.

Socialism is basically institutionalized philanthropy. Such as: public health care, public education, mas transportation, sewer lines (yes, believe it or not), social security, welfare, workers' unions, state-run soup kitchens and bread lines, government housing (for those who can't afford it), minumum wages, laws against child labor, employment hours, and working conditions.

A public health system is not a system of government nor is it an economic system! Like I said, it's basically organized and institutionsalized philanthropy...

Socialism is basically institutionalized philanthropy. Such as: public health care, public education, mas transportation, sewer lines (yes, believe it or not), social security, welfare, workers' unions, state-run soup kitchens and bread lines, government housing (for those who can't afford it), minumum wages, laws against child labor, employment hours, and working conditions.

No, it isn't. Those are all aspects of a welfare state, not of a socialist economy.

Socialism involves primarily collective ownership of the means of production.

A public health system is not a system of government nor is it an economic system!

Not in and of itself, no.

But it's a quality of certain economic systems.

Fine. Companies that extensively hire labor are collective endeavours. It really amounts to the same thing.


And your position is that that should be handled by the collective, and since they usually aren't, it's wrong?

That's not what I said, sorry.

The individual freedom denied to individuals under socialism is denied under any modern economy. That IS what I said.

...same thing. You're saying it's OK because hey, socialism doesn't take away anything that anyone doesn't already have taken away. This fails because 1), just because something is a certain way doesn't make it right, and 2) socialism does indeed deny plenty of things that a free market system would not, with respect to individuals. This is common sense, which is why you'll probably argue against it.


So they can be tromped on by anyone else?

That's not what I said, sorry.

But, I'd rather be a victim of an individual than a state. I can oppose an individual. I can't oppose the state. That said, the state's job should be to help protect the freedoms of the individual, not to tromp on them. It's not an either/or situation where if I am not getting crushed by the state, I must be getting crushed by individuals. Maybe I'm optimistic due to my lack of Marxist brainwashing.

No, it isn't. Those are all aspects of a welfare state, not of a socialist economy.

Socialism involves primarily collective ownership of the means of production.

Unless you're saying that America is a welfare state (which it isn't; its idea of taking care of the poor mainly involves making sure they don't get bloodstains on the sidewalk), then I'm afraid not. Those have all been central issues of the socialist movement at various times. And no... communism involves that. Socialism is basically just a domestic policy. (It does, however, go into economics when it places restrictions on companies to assure that they take care of their workers, the customers, and their neighbors (such as California's nineteenth-century ban on hydrolic mining (It tended to clog the creeks and cause minor flooding in riverside areas.). Socialsim effects social policies. It coincides directly with capitalism. I really should know. My great aunt was one of the very major figures in the early twentieth-century American socialist movement.

And your position is that that should be handled by the collective, and since they usually aren't, it's wrong?

Yes.

...same thing. You're saying it's OK because hey, socialism doesn't take away anything that anyone doesn't already have taken away. This fails because 1), just because something is a certain way doesn't make it right,

True.

Hey, God! Stop fucking with us!

*waits*

Oh, damn. Nothing's changed.

:rolleyes:

and 2) socialism does indeed deny plenty of things that a free market system would not, with respect to individuals.

Obviously.

I believe I said "individual freedom", however. Socialism does not restrict individual freedom any more than a free market does.

Actually, it restricts it less... for the reason I already gave. Democratic participation is a guarantor of individual freedom for the simple reason that people like to be free.

But, I'd rather be a victim of an individual than a state. I can oppose an individual. I can't oppose the state.

Actually, I agree.

The problem in our society is that the individually-owned institutions are protected by the armed coercion of the state.

It's not an either/or situation where if I am not getting crushed by the state, I must be getting crushed by individuals.

Obviously not. But you explicitly said that "the best that can be hoped for" is the state's non-interference with freedom... as if the interference with freedom on the part of individuals was irrelevant.

Edit: The fact that you think I am a statist is mildly amusing.

No, it isn't. Those are all aspects of a welfare state, not of a socialist economy.

Socialism involves primarily collective ownership of the means of production.That's not it either. Socialism is, in essence, that social, political and/or economic relations needs to be more equal.

Thus it's a completely pointless catch-all phrase that can mean a multitude of mutually exclusive things.

In terms of economy, it most frequently refers to USSR style planned capitalism - just like capitalism most frequently refers to a part planned, part market, part mercantilist economic system.

Unless you're saying that America is a welfare state

The claim could be made.

The alternative you have suggested, calling the United States socialist, is certainly more absurd.

Those have all been central issues of the socialist movement at various times.

Indeed. And central issues for the various US communist parties in recent years have been the Iraq War and the defense of "illegal" immigrants.

Does that make an anti-war or pro-immigrant stance communist?

And no... communism involves that.

No, communism is a specific kind of socialism that renounces market distribution and advocates instead something approximating economic equality.

Socialsim effects social policies. It coincides directly with capitalism.

Okay, let's step back a moment.

Whose definition are you using?

Mixture. Cos' no country in the world is purely statist and no country in the world is purely capitalist. Pragmatism and practicality FTW!

I support capitalism for the same reason that I support democracy. They are both based on the principle of choice.

...same thing. You're saying it's OK because hey, socialism doesn't take away anything that anyone doesn't already have taken away. This fails because 1), just because something is a certain way doesn't make it right, and 2) socialism does indeed deny plenty of things that a free market system would not, with respect to individuals. This is common sense, which is why you'll probably argue against it.

Actually, socialism helps protect freedom. In governments, it can sometimes have the side effect of more bureaucracy, because, let's face it, that's how governments are. Nonetheless, one of the central tennants of socialsim has always been the protection of freedom, civil liberties, personal rights, and especially equality and protection for minorities. How would socialism- a series of domestic policies to basically institutionalize philanthropy- reduce your freedom?

That said, the state's job should be to help protect the freedoms of the individual, not to tromp on them.

That's what socialism is for.

Maybe I'm optimistic due to my lack of Marxist brainwashing.

Marx was communism. That is a system of governement and an economic system. Aside from the fact that both socialism and communism both flared up in the same time period and were both championed by the workers (and, thus, are commonly confused), the two systems have absolutely nothing in common. By the way, while I'm definitely a socialsist, I am not at all a communist. I would like to be very rich some day...

Okay, let's step back a moment.

Whose definition are you using?

I was wondering if- being that we appear to be talking about completely different things with the same name- that was the problem. I'm talking about socialism as in:

-the movement to intervene in corporate policies to protect the saftey of its workers/ clientelle/ neighbors (such as those who live in the same town as a factory dumping toxic waste)

-the enstatement of social policies such as public health care, mass transit, social security, etc.

-issues championed by the populace for the benefit of the common man (not corporations or government) such as labor unions, minority protection coalitions, etc.

-in general, the practice of (metaphorically) helping someone to their feet when they've fallen down, letting someone lean on you when they're injured and can't walk, and standing up for those too weak to stand up for themselves


In America, it's sometimes called "European socialism," though it is what socialism has been all along, before the definition was corrupted by the U.S."S."R, which was anything but socialist. (It acutally wasn't communist either; it was based on currency. It was just a highly isolationist totalitarian dictatorship. -But that's not the point.) I think the "socialism" you're talking about is the "U.S.S.R." sort.


--For further explanation: along this definition, the title of the thread perhaps ought to have been "Socialism or Laissez-faire"

Fallacious argument.

Socialism haven't been proven wrong, neither have capitalism.

Rape have been proven wrong (by consensus).You seem to be an extremist on the whole right and wrong thing. As a centrist I prefer something in between.

Anarchist socialism for me.

I'm proudly extremist on this topic.

You're not an extremist.

You're sane, level-headed, and rational, plus I don't see you blowing up any buildings. Radical, but not an extremist.

Marx was communism. That is a system of governement and an economic system. Aside from the fact that both socialism and communism both flared up in the same time period and were both championed by the workers (and, thus, are commonly confused), the two systems have absolutely nothing in common.

You're aware that many of the European socialist parties had Marxist roots?

That, indeed, many of them held on the advocacy of collective ownership well into the second half of the twentieth century (at least rhetorically)?

That the socialist movement that "flared up", Marxist and non-Marxist, generally had as its aim the establishment of collective ownership, though the methods and form varied?

The USSR called itself socialist for a reason - because it had state ownership of the means of production, and in its official political theory, the state was the representative of the people organized through the soviets. If that formulation had been true, it would indeed have been socialist. (That is to say, this is not a matter of wrong definitions so much as false evidence.)

The issue has been confused by the rightward swing of the parties of the Socialist International.

But this is a rightward swing. When most of the parties, or their predecessors, were founded, their ideology was genuinely socialist - at least in the "eventually we should reach this stage" sense.

You're not an extremist.

You're sane, level-headed, and rational,

Perhaps, but plenty of extremists are sane, level-headed, and rational. Our sane, level-headed reason just leads us to extreme conclusions.

plus I don't see you blowing up any buildings.

Because I have neither the skills nor the tools necessary to do any such thing, and I think it would be pointless and needlessly destructive even if I did.

Not because I renounce, in principle, the use of political violence - not when the institutions I oppose are systematically lethal and destructive in their own right.

That's not it either. Socialism is, in essence, that social, political and/or economic relations needs to be more equal.

Thus it's a completely pointless catch-all phrase that can mean a multitude of mutually exclusive things.

In terms of economy, it most frequently refers to USSR style planned capitalism - just like capitalism most frequently refers to a part planned, part market, part mercantilist economic system. No, not really.
Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production.

so·cial·ism /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Pronunciation soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Perhaps, but plenty of extremists are sane, level-headed, and rational. Our sane, level-headed reason just leads us to extreme conclusions.



Because I have neither the skills nor the tools necessary to do any such thing, and I think it would be pointless and needlessly destructive even if I did.

Not because I renounce, in principle, the use of political violence - not when the institutions I oppose are systematically lethal and destructive in their own right.
Are you sure that you are talking about extremists and not radicals?

You seem to be an extremist on the whole right and wrong thing. As a centrist I prefer something in between.

Extreme center?

In anyways, I do think we had to choose some extremes in order to act.

Laissez-faire radical.

Yeh, 'cuz welfare mercantilism isn't more destructive than planned or market capitalism...

Yes. That was sarcasm. Either's better than what we've got now. Participatory economics would be better still, but sadly it's too inoffensive an idea not to offend 99.9% of everyone. Probably because it's not a brand yet, and we all know that if it ain't got name recognition going for it, it's just no good.

This thread reeks of stupid.
Amen.

No, not really.

Those are good definitions.

Are you sure that you are talking about extremists and not radicals?

I see no substantive difference, except that "extremist" is more often pejorative.

ex·trem·ist
–noun
1. a person who goes to extremes, esp. in political matters.
2. a supporter or advocate of extreme doctrines or practices.

You're aware that many of the European socialist parties had Marxist roots?

When I said "European socialsim," I meant in modern terms (such as Scandinavia).

That the socialist movement that "flared up", Marxist and non-Marxist, generally had as its aim the establishment of collective ownership, though the methods and form varied?

No, it didn't. Not at all. Take for example The Modern School- all of the buildings were privately owned, bought and sold. My great aunt apparently owned the main building. If I recall correctly, she used to rent out the rooms too. As far as I know, she never advocated state ownership in any way, shape, or form. In the last history book I saw her in, she was actually listed (as were most of The Modern School's historical figures) as an anarchist. Apparently, she would have gotten very angry if you'd ever called her an anarchist. Yet The Modern School was America's only (or at least first) socialist institution and was the leader of the American socialist movement.

The USSR called itself socialist for a reason - because it had state ownership of the means of production, and in its official political theory, the state was the representative of the people organized through the soviets. If that formulation had been true, it would indeed have been socialist. (That is to say, this is not a matter of wrong definitions so much as false evidence.)

We are very definitely using different definitions. State ownership of the means of production has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. In fact, no proper socialist would even support it, because it bears too much of a capacity for government abuse, too much power in the government's hands, and too high its ability to shift toward authoritarianism. Socialism- at least the kind I'm talking about- is very much against authoritarianism. Two of the things that are most important to it are freedom and equality. Eqaulity is neccessity, peace is prosperity, and freedom is priceless. There are no things in the world more valuable than those.

Actually, socialism helps protect freedom. In governments, it can sometimes have the side effect of more bureaucracy, because, let's face it, that's how governments are. Nonetheless, one of the central tennants of socialsim has always been the protection of freedom, civil liberties, personal rights, and especially equality and protection for minorities. How would socialism- a series of domestic policies to basically institutionalize philanthropy- reduce your freedom?

By trying to "equalize" my economic so that it's "fair" to those who are "less equal." By forcing me to give yet more of my time, energy and money to the State. Socialism has never been considered with economic freedom, which was what I was talking about in the post.

That's what socialism is for.

Tromping on individual liberty? Yes.

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/barcelona/capitalism.jpg

Capitalism breeds competition
Competition breeds technological advances
Technological advances breeds Victory

Soon, just as we planned there will be a United States of Earth, run by President McFordosoft! Can't you see that's where we have been heading since the dawn of the Industrial revolution?!! The plan is going perfectly, today the world tomorrow the moon!! :rolleyes:

By trying to "equalize" my economic so that it's "fair" to those who are "less equal." By forcing me to give yet more of my time, energy and money to the State. Socialism has never been considered with economic freedom, which was what I was talking about in the post.

If you're talking about an increase in taxes to fund social services such as public heath, public education, road maintanance, etc, then yes. I don't know about you, but I would consider it to be very much worth it if it means we get to obtain and keep (respectively) such services.

Tromping on individual liberty? Yes.

There is a huge difference between individual liberty (which socialism protects and increases) and corporate liberty. Socialism does impose restrictions on corporations to ensure that their workers are being treated fairly, its customers aren't being cheated, and its neighbors (such as those who live around a factory) aren't being harmed by the company's practices either. Minimum wage, working hours, working conditions, the abolition of child labor, workers' unions, consumer fraud regulations, local pollution restrictions (such as the dumping of toxic waste into creeks), and laws against descrimination in the workplace are all direct results of socialism at one point or another. While they decrease corporate freedoms, they increase and protect the freedoms of the individual.

Socialism only tromps on one individual's right to tromp on the rights of another individual. And liberty, by its very nature, stops where the liberty of another begins. (For example, my right to swing my arm stops where your face begins. My "right" to swing my arm would be infringing on your right to live in peace.) Socialism, by protecting those boundaries and stopping employers and those of prejudice from crossing them, thus protects personal liberty.

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/barcelona/capitalism.jpg

Capitalism breeds competition
Competition breeds technological advances
Technological advances breeds Victory

Soon, just as we planned there will be a United States of Earth, run by President McFordosoft! Can't you see that's where we have been heading since the dawn of the Industrial revolution?!! The plan is going perfectly, today the world tomorrow the moon!! :rolleyes:

Sadly for the moon then, socialism works in conjunction with capitalism.

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/barcelona/capitalism.jpg

Capitalism breeds competition
Competition breeds technological advances
Technological advances breeds Victory

Soon, just as we planned there will be a United States of Earth, run by President McFordosoft! Can't you see that's where we have been heading since the dawn of the Industrial revolution?!! The plan is going perfectly, today the world tomorrow the moon!! :rolleyes:

Don't like it on the bottom? Climb to a higher tier? That's capitalism.

Socialism is yanking everyone down to the same level because those on the bottom are jealous of those who are not.

No, not really.Don't pick & choose definitions.socialism

An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production.What the wiki mentions quite a bit later, and what the dictionaries referenced at dictionary.com doesn't mention at all, is that some, all or a combination of such values are considered favourable by socialists, because they increase social, political and economic equality.

Whether they in fact do, is a different question. Traditional anarchists - which came about around the same time as communism and thus quite a bit later than the concept of socialism - would hold that while collective control of the economy is desirable, because it furthers equality, centralized control of the economy would be bad, because it disenfranchises the people supposed to benefit from the economy. Long story short; socialism is so many things, it's pointless to talk about it beyond it's most basic goal - which is to further equality.

The 'right swing' someone mentioned, is a bit silly too. Socialism existed as a concept before people started talking about communism and so forth. It's never been incompatible with terms like property rights or a private sector. Some particular socialist theories always have. Others never have.
So it's more accurate to say people were radicalized on a massive scale, lasting for quite a while, and changing the western economies on a massive scale, for the better. Once the effects of the changes started making themselves felt, people generally stopped being radicals.

Don't like it on the bottom? Climb to a higher tier? That's capitalism.In what passes for capitalism these days, social mobility is all but a myth. Socialism is yanking everyone down to the same level because those on the bottom are jealous of those who are not.It's the other way 'round. The handful at the top controls and uses more wealth than all the other layers combined. So if just one of the gits on the top is yanked down, everyone else is propelled up.

Further, since the gits at the top don't actually contribute to the economy - their wealth generates itself, to the detriment of everyone else - it's very tough to argue from an ethical standpoint, that the gits at the top doesn't deserve to be paupers. They're not just leeches, after all. They're leeches destroying the livelihood of the majority. When anyone else does that sort of thing on a significantly smaller scale, we tend to lock them up.

Well, as Marx pointed out, capital economies are inherently destructive and wasteful, and will inevitably destroy themselves because of their flaws.

That seems to describe Marxist systems perfectly.

Socialism. All the checks and balances in the world can't fix the economic and social flaws in capitalism.

Socialism creates even more economic and social flaws. The people who run the show tend to think the laws of supply and demand can be broken.

Communism.

Well, as Marx pointed out, capital economies are inherently destructive and wasteful, and will inevitably destroy themselves because of their flaws.

And any claim of inevitability, especially in the social sciences, is a load of crap.

Communism.

Over my cold, dead body.

Over my cold, dead body.Hm? I didn't say you had to participate in the communism. Though you likely would anyway, eventually.

The handful at the top controls and uses more wealth than all the other layers combined. So if just one of the gits on the top is yanked down, everyone else is propelled up.


Rubbish.


Further, since the gits at the top don't actually contribute to the economy

Rubbish

Hm? I didn't say you had to participate in the communism. Though you likely would anyway, eventually.

I think I'd most likely not.

When I said "European socialsim," I meant in modern terms (such as Scandinavia).

And by what standard do you classify the present policies of the European "socialist" parties as socialist?

After all, their names are a relic of a past when they actually were socialist - and were not adopted to describe their present policies.

No, it didn't. Not at all. Take for example The Modern School- all of the buildings were privately owned, bought and sold.

Yeah, so?

All the socialist newspapers were privately owned, too - still are. The goverrnment, unfortunately, doesn't fund its own opposition.

As far as I know, she never advocated state ownership in any way, shape, or form.

"Collective ownership", I said. And if she didn't advocate either, she wasn't a socialist.

Yet The Modern School was America's only (or at least first) socialist institution and was the leader of the American socialist movement.

The Socialist Party of America preceded the Modern School by ten years, and it was not the first either. It repeatedly ran Eugene V. Debs as a candidate.

"The working class must get rid of the whole brood of masters and exploiters, and put themselves in possession and control of the means of production, that they may have steady employment without consulting a capitalist employer, large or small, and that they may get the wealth their labor produces, all of it, and enjoy with their families the fruits of their industry in comfortable and happy homes, abundant and wholesome food, proper clothing and all other things necessary to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ It is therefore a question not of “reform,’ the mask of fraud, but of revolution. The capitalist system must be overthrown, class-rule abolished and wage-slavery supplanted by the coöperative industry." - Eugene V. Debs

Outlook for Socialism in the United States (http://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1900/outlook.htm)

We are very definitely using different definitions. State ownership of the means of production has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. In fact, no proper socialist would even support it, because it bears too much of a capacity for government abuse, too much power in the government's hands, and too high its ability to shift toward authoritarianism.

The problem with this line of logic is that it fails to consider the alternative.

Keeping the means of production in private hands won't make them less powerful. It just means that they will be controlled by the rich instead of by the representatives of the people.

Socialism- at least the kind I'm talking about- is very much against authoritarianism.

Yes, so is most socialism.

That's why we speak of a democratic economy - an economy where the authoritarianism of private ownership is replaced by one where the people themselves, with their equality of political power, control it for the public benefit rather than private profit.

We differ significantly on how exactly this control is to be exercised, but that is the principle.

From the Socialist Party USA's Statement of Principles (http://sp-usa.org/principles.html):

"In a socialist system the people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically controlled public agencies, cooperatives, or other collective groups."

From the Democratic Socialists of America's Where We Stand (http://www.dsausa.org/about/where.html):

"Simply put, the domination of the economy by privately-owned corporation is not the most rational and equitable way to govern our economic life."

"But, the social ownership characteristic of a socialist society will greatly limit inequality. In fact, widespread worker and public ownership will greatly lessen the corrosive effect of capitalists markets on people's lives."

I deliberately chose non-Marxist, relatively moderate organizations.

Socialism, but none of this emo extreme stuff.

"In a socialist system the people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically controlled public agencies, cooperatives, or other collective groups."
In other words, the numerically superior dictate what happens to all and how things are distributed. What then is to stop them from showering the benefits of the labor of those outside the group on their own members? Nothing. That is the ugly side of democracy. It's the numerically superior group stomping on the rights and the numerically inferior, forcing them to the cliffs edge then stomping on their fingers as they hang on for dear life. The individual is not important, does not exist by their own definition, only the group. The community. The collective. Borg. Sounds Swedish.

"Simply put, the domination of the economy by privately-owned corporation is not the most rational and equitable way to govern our economic life."
Name a historical example of a better system that actually worked.

"But, the social ownership characteristic of a socialist society will greatly limit inequality.
By making everyone equally poor.

In fact, widespread worker and public ownership will greatly lessen the corrosive effect of capitalists markets on people's lives."
Mind telling me exactly what about capitalism is corrosive? And how community ownership of everything wouldn't lead to tyrany by majority?

[QUOTE]I deliberately chose non-Marxist, relatively moderate organizations.
Those aren't moderate organizations.

In other words, the numerically superior dictate what happens to all and how things are distributed.

Only insofar as the present owners of the means of production - namely, the rich - dictate the same.

What then is to stop them from showering the benefits of the labor of those outside the group on their own members? Nothing.

"The group" is everybody.

Anti-democrats continually rail about the "majority", as if it were some cohesive, monolithic bloc just waiting to rain its tyranny on everybody else... but no such entity exists.

That is the ugly side of democracy. It's the numerically superior group stomping on the rights and the numerically inferior,

Not usually, no.

It's everybody voting for their own interests... and because each has an equal voice, more or less equal representation results.

The minority does lose, yes, but the minority is not a constant. It changes with every decision. Everyone wins sometimes, and everyone loses sometimes - and which side wins or loses is determined by which decision benefits more people.

The result? The public good is served.

forcing them to the cliffs edge then stomping on their fingers as they hang on for dear life. The individual is not important, does not exist by their own definition, only the group. The community. The collective. Borg. Sounds Swedish.

Ah, scare rhetoric.

Name a historical example of a better system that actually worked.

Before capitalism, what would have been your answer?

There have been a number of libertarian socialist systems that have functioned, though - in Spain during the Civil War and in Ukraine during the Russian Revolution and Civil War, for instance. Both were crushed by external forces, though. That does tend to mess things up.

Mind telling me exactly what about capitalism is corrosive?

I was quoting without all the context, because I only wanted to make a specific point... it's actually rather amusing that you chose this post, of all, to respond to.

If you want to know what they mean, read the pieces. I linked to them.

Those aren't moderate organizations.

No socialist in the US is moderate.

Learn what "relative" means.

Take for example The Modern School- all of the buildings were privately owned, bought and sold. My great aunt apparently owned the main building. If I recall correctly, she used to rent out the rooms too. As far as I know, she never advocated state ownership in any way, shape, or form. In the last history book I saw her in, she was actually listed (as were most of The Modern School's historical figures) as an anarchist. Apparently, she would have gotten very angry if you'd ever called her an anarchist. Yet The Modern School was America's only (or at least first) socialist institution and was the leader of the American socialist movement.

neither first nor only.

so why was your stridently non-anarchist great aunt associated with an anarchist schooling idea whose american incarnation was founded by some of the most notorious anarchists in the country?

Soon, just as we planned there will be a United States of Earth, run by President McFordosoft! Can't you see that's where we have been heading since the dawn of the Industrial revolution?!! The plan is going perfectly, today the world tomorrow the moon!! :rolleyes:

Mt McDonald in Canada has so two yellow arches (though more like a yellow semi-circle in design).

Socialism creates even more economic and social flaws. The people who run the show tend to think the laws of supply and demand can be broken.

What about market socialists?

Even some of the planned economies were more about try to efficiently regulate the amount of material being moved to areas so there was no oversupply.

Socialism, but none of this emo extreme stuff.

Emo Socialism :D

There have been a number of libertarian socialist systems that have functioned, though - in Spain during the Civil War and in Ukraine during the Russian Revolution and Civil War, for instance. Both were crushed by external forces, though. That does tend to mess things up.

I thought that the spanish lot were anarcho-socialists and anarcho-communists.

State ownership of the means of production has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. In fact, no proper socialist would even support it, because it bears too much of a capacity for government abuse, too much power in the government's hands, and too high its ability to shift toward authoritarianism.

Well, not if it is run as a more decentralised model, such as a cogestion setup.

Two of the things that are most important to it are freedom and equality. Equality is neccessity, peace is prosperity, and freedom is priceless. There are no things in the world more valuable than those.

What about the next generation of humans? Without those neither of those ideals can be continued.

As for myself I am a state (market, federal state structure) socialist. Yep, pretty much disliked by a lot of the socialists and capitalists.

Only annoying thing about being a socialist is that there are too many marxist (as state communist or anarcho-communist) groups. Even an anarcho-socialist group would nice for a change.

Hmm, I posted.

I thought that the spanish lot were anarcho-socialists and anarcho-communists.

They were.

That means that spain did not primarily have libertarian socialists

I'd have to say after reading 'The Jungle', Socialism! (We will take Chicago!)

My vote goes to socialism. Not on economic grounds, but simply humanitarian grounds.

I would much rather a government be in place that makes philanthropy mandatory for everyone than one that allows people the freedom to be heartless bastards to the less fortunate.

If having a gigantic economy is the final goal, then by all means, capitalism is the way to go; though that, frankly, is a rather shallow way to live your life, IMO - always looking out for number one.

The point of the matter is, nobody can be ignorant of the fact that the world is becoming increasingly globalized. With that in mind, the attitude of "we'll take care of ourselves and let the rest of world deal with the rest of the world" can't be the position taken. If it is, you've gone from being a nation with a couple of heartless bastards in it to where the whole world thinks your nation as a whole is a heartless bastard. When that mindset is cemented in the rest of the world, they'll simply wean themselves off any dealings with you, and turn to the more open, less heartless-bastardly countries for economic transactions.

Call me idealistic, but IMHO, in the long run it really is much more profitable to be kind to the less fortunate.

That means that spain did not primarily have libertarian socialists

Anarchists ARE libertarian socialists.

I believe i'm a mix, i'm not sure however. Universal healthcare, and Education, the gov. regulates the Water, Power, Gas, crude oil, and trash companies so they dont charge too much, the gov. runs the communications but freedom of speech, expression and of the press will be allowed. Their is free enterprise but monopolies are not allowed. The rich are taxed more than the poor.

capitalism for me

I thought that the spanish lot were anarcho-socialists and anarcho-communists.

Many were, yes. There were also some Stalinists and others, though, but IIRC, most were libertarian leftists (i.e., the people supported by Orwell, Goldman, etc.).

There were also some Stalinists and others, though

The Stalinist Communist Party of Spain opposed the revolution.

The Stalinist Communist Party of Spain opposed the revolution.

Ah. TBH, I haven't studied the Spanish Civil War that much, so thanks for the info. :) Any books on the subject you'd recommend?

Socialism. A system which has only economical rise in its sight will not only destroy the nature, it also will slowly turn into plutocracy

Anarchists ARE libertarian socialists.

How did you work that out? Whilst libertarians tend to share more with anarchists than statists (unless you are an anarchist that really orthodox i.e any group that still wants to keep the state, no matter how small is a statist) there is a fundemental difference between them: Libertarians still want the state around, even if it is as small as possible (minarchism).

I believe i'm a mix, i'm not sure however.

Call yourself a centrist then. Everybody wins (except the extreme/orthodox lot)!

Universal healthcare, and Education, the gov. regulates the Water, Power, Gas, crude oil, and trash companies so they dont charge too much,

Ahhh, the public sector. Being in control of power could help to stop those terrible lobby groups, provided there is also far more media exposure to the process.

the gov. runs the communications but freedom of speech, expression and of the press will be allowed. Their is free enterprise but monopolies are not allowed.

The media sector could be far more decentralised than other public sectors due to it being important in the proper function of the state (could even be considered another branch of the state).

The rich are taxed more than the poor.

Is that called a progressive tax?


I wonder if there are any state socialists on NG?

The media sector could be far more decentralised than other public sectors due to it being important in the proper function of the state (could even be considered another branch of the state).Looking at the real world, it seems state-run critical services, infrastructure and media, is more efficient, cheaper, open and less propagandistic than the private sector can manage.

Then again, it's only true of media and media infrastructure where these are protected from party political influence.Is that called a progressive tax?Yes?I wonder if there are any state socialists on NG?Depends on your definition of such a critter. Social Democrats could be considered state socialists, and there's plenty of those on here.

Looking at the real world, it seems state-run critical services, infrastructure and media, is more efficient, cheaper, open and less propagandistic than the private sector can manage.

Oh, I didn't mean that it should be a private entity, just that there should be ways to prevent the media as a whole being a mouthpart of the government in power at that time.

Some groups would have to be there, due to the government needing to spread information about new laws and such.

Then again, it's only true of media and media infrastructure where these are protected from party political influence.

Depends on your definition of such a critter. Social Democrats could be considered state socialists, and there's plenty of those on here.

I should expect so, considering that is one of the largest types of socialists around.

I wonder how many of them support cogestion...

Oh, I didn't mean that it should be a private entity, just that there should be ways to prevent the media as a whole being a mouthpart of the government in power at that time.

Some groups would have to be there, due to the government needing to spread information about new laws and such.The most conscientious, propaganda free and objective media, seems to be that which is publicly owned, but protected from political intervention. Interestingly, private media in countries that have such public media, also appear to have a insanely much better track record than private media in other countries.I wonder how many of them support cogestion...I don't know what that is. The dictionary didn't either, though it's suggestion made me chuckle.

Libertarians still want the state around, even if it is as small as possible (minarchism).

Right-wing libertarians, maybe.

Not libertarian socialists, who either want a decentralized, radically democratic state (though certainly not "minarchist" in the ordinary conception) or no state at all.

The most conscientious, propaganda free and objective media, seems to be that which is publicly owned, but protected from political intervention.

I completely agree with that. Only problem is that one of the major aspects of control (funding) still hasn't been worked out to a satisfactory conclusion.

Interestingly, private media in countries that have such public media, also appear to have a insanely much better track record than private media in other countries.

There is something to compare them to. Is it any wonder that all of the tacky news lots and tabloid newspaper groups allways rail against the public broadcaster media?

I don't know what that is. The dictionary didn't either, though it's suggestion made me chuckle.

Well there is autogestion: workplace is run by the workers as a mini-democracy. Cogestion is that but with the state acting as dual partner to the workers.

Why did it make you chuckle? I guess it does look like a rather odd word.

Right-wing libertarians, maybe.

Not libertarian socialists, who either want a decentralized, radically democratic state (though certainly not "minarchist" in the ordinary conception) or no state at all.

I admit I do not know that much about libertarianism.

Wouldn't wanting no state make it anarchism rather than libertarianism?

I completely agree with that. Only problem is that one of the major aspects of control (funding) still hasn't been worked out to a satisfactory conclusion.I'm a syndicalist parecon type, so I have a solution for it. Of course, there's the small issue of dismantling the state and reconstructing the entire economy.



There is something to compare them to. Is it any wonder that all of the tacky news lots and tabloid newspaper groups allways rail against the public broadcaster media?No, none at all. And interestingly, even private media in countries with properly protected public media, frequently says the same damn thing.
In all fairness though, some of the criticism comes from people who earnestly believes that public ownership is an abomination. The anti-authoritarians amongst them might even have a point.


Well there is autogestion: workplace is run by the workers as a mini-democracy. Cogestion is that but with the state acting as dual partner to the workers.Oh, heh. I need to start reading something other than my wife's fantasy collection.

Some probably do, I wouldn't know. It also depends a lot on your definitions. Syndicalized parecon, for example, could be said to fit it, though an actual state isn't involved.

Why did it make you chuckle? I guess it does look like a rather odd word.I thought it was a typo, so I looked it up and the dictionary suggested "Congestion" instead. It might just be me, but I think there's a certain irony in asking an anarchist if statists support congestion.

Does it matter much?

The person who can work one system can work the other because smart competent people will always game the system. Any discussion using such meaningless words is just a drivel-fest. As always, the action is in the nuts and bolts. And it's the folks who work that out who will know where the creases in any system are and be able to take advantage of them. Bill Gates would likely have made an excellent commisar, and Kruschev a good MP or senator. Changing the game just forces the players to learn some new rules, the good players will still excel while the mouth-breathers lag.

I'm a syndicalist parecon type, so I have a solution for it. Of course, there's the small issue of dismantling the state and reconstructing the entire economy.

Ahhh, to be opposed. What a wonderful feeling. Well, up with new state socialism.

No, none at all. And interestingly, even private media in countries with properly protected public media, frequently says the same damn thing.

I would say it would be even more so, due to those groups wanting to oust the public sector version.

Oh, heh. I need to start reading something other than my wife's fantasy collection.

That is her property and you have no right to infringe on something that is intrinsically hers :p . What a hilarious (i.e bad) joke.

*Must resist asking what genres*

Some probably do, I wouldn't know. It also depends a lot on your definitions. Syndicalized parecon, for example, could be said to fit it, though an actual state isn't involved.

Interestingly enough a fair few participator economics crop up in my view of state socialism. Though syndacism does not go into it. Nor does job complexes (I think that is correct term).

With me it is not so much people constantly having a say (though recall is a very good form of general populace intervention) it is more keeping the everyone as informed as possible.

I thought it was a typo, so I looked it up and the dictionary suggested "Congestion" instead. It might just be me, but I think there's a certain irony in asking an anarchist if statists support congestion.

I must admit there is not that much documentation of it, though there was some in french. Unfortunately google translator isn't that great.

Does it matter much?

Actually it does. For the most part it is not merely an economic form it is a social model and as such is involved in the shaping of society. If we had a different society we may not have a Gates with so much desire for a monopoly.

By changing the system you change how people must interact. If everyone was informed well then many of the various lobby groups that try to convince the public with inaccurate information would not succeed.

Ahhh, to be opposed. What a wonderful feeling. Well, up with new state socialism.Hell no! Down with state socialism.That is her property and you have no right to infringe on something that is intrinsically hers :p . What a hilarious (i.e bad) joke.:p*Must resist asking what genres*I don't really know. Several, presumably. I'm a sci-fi guy myself.Interestingly enough a fair few participator economics crop up in my view of state socialism. Though syndacism does not go into it. Nor does job complexes (I think that is correct term).Well, one of the basic ideas behind the system, is the elimination of the 'administrative' class - meaning what's traditionally considered the state - so it depends a lot on how you define it. Then again, there might exist some state-based bastardisation of participatory economics that I haven't heard of.With me it is not so much people constantly having a say (though recall is a very good form of general populace intervention) it is more keeping the everyone as informed as possible.In a parecon system, only those affected by X influence X. If you buy a car, for example, you'll have a lot of influence on the transaction, whereas the athsmatic guy in the other end of the country will not be affected to the extent that he, on his own, has any influence.Does it matter much?Yes it does. Not all economic systems are exploitative in nature. Some are cooperative. It basically boils down to what the economic system defines as wealth, and how and what it rewards the individuals.

Capitalism - state, market or otherwise - is just one system for defining, quantifying and distributing wealth. There's any number of ways to do it, operating with any number of different definitions. ParEcon, for examples, treats cooperation, rather than exploitation, as wealth. So if you 'play the angles' in that system, it'll benefit, rather than deprive, your peers.

Obviously a mix of the two.

If you go for one without the other, you're either going to be exploiting the poor, or indeed your country is going to run out of money a bit sharpish.

For a good mix, see Sweden pre-the-last-elections, Finland sometimes, and often Britain. In fact, most of Western Europe, really.

niether. the're not opposites. the're not systems. both are prone to tyranny and resorting to violence, though nothing intrinsic to either requires either to do so.

and everything that doesn't kiss the ass of little green pieces of paper isn't the boogie man.

nature doesn't kiss the ass of little green pieces of paper and none of us would be alive without it.

mutual assistence though, is the only reason so called civilization ever developed. the one meritorious thing capitolism ever did was to enable the evolution of tecnology to overcome the opposition of other forms of fanatacism. but even that has a point of diminishing returns. and none of those other fanatacisms were ever neccessary either.

=^^=
.../\...