Pure Capitalism and Pure Socialism = Same Outcome.

[johnaries]

Pure Capitalism based on an unregulated Free Market has only one ultimate outcome - a single monopoly. History bears this out and is the reason that the US government has created anti-monopoly laws as well as other business regulations. Once the entire economic power of a nation is concentrated in the hands of a few, they will ultimately “buy” and control the government; even a government that was once Democratic.

Pure Socialism automatically puts all economic power in the hands of the government. With such power any government will eventually be corrupted; even a government that was once Democratic. Once again, all power will be concentrated in the hands of a few. Simply look at the former Soviet Union, Cuba, and North Korea.

The most successful societies are moving toward a blend of regulated Capitalism and Socialism. Many traditionally Socialist countries are beginning to allow private enterprise. Many traditionally Capitalistic countries are adopting many Socialist policies.

When properly balanced within a society, Socialism and Capitalism can complement and support each other.

[AntiFascist]

1. What we have now is Economic Fascism....

if you don't believe me then read what former Supreme Court Justice Stevens recently said:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/laura-harrison-mcbride/38872/justice-jp-stevens-ret-explains-it-all-bushs-presidency-was-first-step-toward-fascism

Also, here is the Wikipedia entry with lots of references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

[joshcryer]

2. This is one fundamental observation that anarchists have been making for a century.

It's the same system.

Likewise, regulated socialism with a market is the same as regulated capitalism with socialism. No difference.

edit: the most successful so far appear to be the democratic socialisms or social democracies. Free market rights, but high regulations, and progressive taxes. They have been the best for a good 50 or so years and at one point the United States could've put itself in that club.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. My only but is that what we have right now

is not capitalism per adam smith. He was all for the small producer, living wages and yes, no monopolies and regulation.

That said, you hit the nail on the proverbial head for one reason alone... both are dreams, non achievable dream. Utopias are just part of western thinking.

What works though is a mixed economy with heavy regulations. Of couse that is the case if you are a member of the 99%. If you are one of the 1%, well it is not gonna work for ya.

[Odin2005]

4. I think you are confused about the definitions of Capitalism and Socialism.

You are describing Markets vs. Planning, which is not the same thing as Capitalism and Socialism. Capitalism/Socialism describes who owns the means of production, not how goods and services are distributed. Socialism does not conflict with a market economy.

[leftstreet]

7. +1

[socialist_n_TN]

5. RE: Your second paragraph........

Pure socialism automatically puts all economic power in the hands of the PEOPLE. When anyone says "government", my immediate reaction is to substitute the word "people" for government because that's the way it SHOULD be. What we have now is a government that's ruled by the capitalists, NOT the people. A truly representative government would put all of the economic power in the hands of the PEOPLE.

All of the "socialistic" governments you mentioned were Stalinist. And Stalinism was a perversion of the Leninist and Trotskyist model of a true representative democracy of the working class. I guess the point is that we haven't really seen a true representation of the Marxist version of socialism since Stalin usurped the revolution of October 1917. All models after the Stalinist perversion were made in Stalin's image.

Now as to the thrust of your post (because I HATE people who take off on a tangent and then DON'T go back to the thrust of the argument :)), think about this. When most people think of "capitalism", because of the decades of capitalist propaganda, they think of the Mom and Pop shopkeepers or the petit bourgeoisie. That's not what capitalism is really about and doing away with the Mom and Pop model of small business wouldn't be what a true Marxist socialism would be about. Why in the world would a $14 trillion dollar economy like the USA's want to worry about a true small business owner/operator netting $20k per year? Or even $100k per year? No there would be bigger fish to fry in socializing the large businesses that keep the masses enslaved.

Here's the deal at least for this one commie and this is straight out of Trotsky and Lenin. You nationalize all large businesses dealing with the general welfare of the population so that NO citizen is hungry, unclothed, unhoused, uneducated, lacking in health care, lacking in access to necessary energy resources, etc. When that PRIORITY is taken care of, THEN you can pay attention to smaller businesses insofar as to the regulation of health and safety of their workers and the public. You provide credit to small businesses that want to be operated as a worker's co-op on an anarcho-syndicalist model from a government bank at low or no interest. But you also establish people/government owned businesses and make it ATTRACTIVE for folks to go to work FOR those businesses. Artisans and artists would ALWAYS be free to do what they do because that's the way that social model works, possibly even with a government stipend. And that's just a start. You would rotate the leadership of any controlling bureaus to prevent the Stalinist bureaucratization problem from reoccuring.

The point is not to mistake what was screwed up in the past for what could be in the future. I'm sure the fuedal lords didn't think that ANY system could work except feudalism. But capitalism came along and was better at accumulating AND (at that time) redistributing the wealth. Capitalism was a radical concept to the Leige, I'm sure. Socialism is a more mature and fairer system for the majority of the people. Capitalism has had it's time and was progress. Socialism is the next step.

And remember, we can learn from our mistakes of the past.

[lunatica]

6. That mirrors my thinking as well

I call it Democratic Socialism, where all the Democratic practices are in play, such as elections, representation of the people, etc., and where the people pay taxes in order to have free healthcare, education, infrastructure, free housing for those who can't work (like the handicapped) and a pension for the elderly (like Social Security).

I also think people should have a business if they want and they should be able to make a living and a profit from it. I think it's perfectly OK to be wealthy from one's business. My concern is with all the other people being able to live well.