Capitalism or Socialism: Which is better?

[Chyeknovostan Republic]

if possible to practice correctly then socialism or communism, money ruins the world

[Genivar]

if possible to practice correctly then socialism or communism, money ruins the world

I support this message.

[Forster Keys]

Economy wise I'm for a mixed economy with whole or part nationalisation of key industries and with a little government regulation for the rest.

[Mike the Progressive]

Capitalism without government intervention will inevitably become Corporatism.

Actually, capitalism with government intervention is corporatism. Just rather than being pro-labor, you have the state being pro-corporate (subsidies, banning unions, etc.).

Then again, from the other comments I've read, which you made, your a liberal blinded by idealism, who only understands what he favors and tends to ignore anything that may conflict with his views.

[Servantium]

Capitalism without government intervention will inevitably become Corporatism.

No it wouldn't. Government intervention is what causes corporatism; not what prevents it.

[Forster Keys]

if possible to practice correctly then socialism or communism, money ruins the world

If its possible I'm for it, but I'm not sure it is. By principal I'd probably anarcho-communist/anarcho-syndicalist or something, as my sig displays. In practice I'm mixed economy democratic socialist though.

[Genivar]

Capitalism without government intervention will inevitably become Corporatism.

Actually, capitalism with government intervention is corporatism. Just rather than being pro-labor, you have the state being pro-corporate (subsidies, banning unions, etc.).

Then again, from the other comments I've read, which you made, your a liberal blinded by idealism, who only understands what he favors and tends to ignore anything that may conflict with his views.

And your a conservative airhead. See I can make claims to.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Capitalism without government intervention will inevitably become Corporatism.

And Capitalism with government intervention inevitably becomes...Corporatism. And/or state capitalism. Either way: BAD.

[Concordeia]

Capitalism without government intervention will inevitably become Corporatism.

No it wouldn't. Government intervention is what causes corporatism; not what prevents it.

And what about government intervention aimed at keeping corporate monopolies/oligopolies from forming and encouraging competition while still maintaining social programs and partial public ownership in critical industries (emergency services, health care, utilities, transportation, telecommunications, etc.)?

Mixed Market anyone?

[FREEaquaticdancelesson]

give people too much and they try and take over.

Try and take over what, exactly?

Well, "take over" is kinda a broad term, I'll give you that.
I'm speaking in the sense of corporate lobbyists influencing congress and killing the idea of a true democracy. I'm also talking about how corporations like walmart destroy small family businesses and shift economic power to the few.

If you want to know what I mean look up BOSS TWEED and his political machine. The Idea is still used in this modern day and age. Look up the history of Atlantic City, look up Chicago, hell!

If there is no socialism in a society to keep monopolies from happening, we loose freedom, and I for one am a fanatic for freedom.

[Servantium]

No it wouldn't. Government intervention is what causes corporatism; not what prevents it.

And what about government intervention aimed at keeping corporate monopolies/oligopolies from forming and encouraging competition

Not necessary since government intervention is what causes monopolies in the first place.

while still maintaining social programs and partial public ownership in critical industries (emergency services, health care, utilities, transportation, telecommunications, etc.)?

Those services would be provided at a higher quality, cheaper, and more efficiently if the government stopped butting it's nose in where it doesn't belong.

[Science-Oriented Scots]

And what about government intervention aimed at keeping corporate monopolies/oligopolies from forming and encouraging competition

Not necessary since government intervention is what causes monopolies in the first place.

If an economics professor at Loyola University Maryland says it, it must be true!

Realistically pure capitalism and pure socialism both fail. They succeed only in the minds of idealists, much like how the ideas of benevolent dictatorship or communism sound nice, but do not work in the real world.

[Servantium]

Try and take over what, exactly?

Well, "take over" is kinda a broad term, I'll give you that.
I'm speaking in the sense of corporate lobbyists influencing congress and killing the idea of a true democracy.

If the government gets out of the economy there is nothing for corporations to gain by lobbying congress.

I'm also talking about how corporations like walmart destroy small family businesses and shift economic power to the few.

Wal-Mart doesn't destroy small family businesses; consumers not buying their products because their are better alternatives, does. This is how capitalism works and provides a better standard for everyone.

If there is no socialism in a society to keep monopolies from happening, we loose freedom

1.) Oppressive monopolies wouldn't happen under Lf Capitalism.
2.) Monopolies aren't even inherently bad.

and I for one am a fanatic for freedom.

[/quote]
Not as much as you say you are if you advocate socialism.

[New Manvir]

And what about government intervention aimed at keeping corporate monopolies/oligopolies from forming and encouraging competition

Not necessary since government intervention is what causes monopolies in the first place.

Utterly Shocking! Adherent of the Austrian School of Economics supports the Austrian School of Economics. Who would have guessed.

[The Sentenial Empire]

mixed libertarian market is the way to go

[Servantium]

Not necessary since government intervention is what causes monopolies in the first place.

Utterly Shocking! Adherent of the Austrian School of Economics supports the Austrian School of Economics. Who would have guessed.

YEah, and he even backs up his assertions with stuff like evidence.

[Science-Oriented Scots]

Utterly Shocking! Adherent of the Austrian School of Economics supports the Austrian School of Economics. Who would have guessed.

YEah, and he even backs up his assertions with stuff like evidence.

Economic theory is not a science. It's not like proving a hypothesis with experimentation. You can't, like that guy, take very carefully selected evidence and claim you're right now and forever everywhere in the world. That's really absurd.

[New Manvir]

Utterly Shocking! Adherent of the Austrian School of Economics supports the Austrian School of Economics. Who would have guessed.

YEah, and he even backs up his assertions with stuff like evidence.

And it's not disingenuous of you at all to present an obviously biased article by an obviously biased author as fact?

[Frenequesta]

I personally don't give a care for this silly notion called "prosperity" that capitalists tote.

[Maurepas]

And what about government intervention aimed at keeping corporate monopolies/oligopolies from forming and encouraging competition

Not necessary since government intervention is what causes monopolies in the first place.

I don't think that says what you think it says. Now, it is bitching about public utilities being public under the mistaken belief that they can be successfully privatized, See: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/1 ... home-burn/

But it says nothing about the creation of Monopolies by private industries and companies, and in no way supports the belief that corporatism and monopoly stems from government intervention into the economy, rather than the opposite.

[Mike the Progressive]

I personally don't give a care for this silly notion called "prosperity" that capitalists tote.

I do.

[Servantium]

Not necessary since government intervention is what causes monopolies in the first place.

I don't think that says what you think it says. Now, it is bitching about public utilities being public under the mistaken belief that they can be successfully privatized,

It;s actually bitching about how government intervention gave private utility providers monopolies.

See: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/1 ... home-burn/

A great example of free market principals in action. Didn't pay for a service and didn't get one, even though the service in question was provided by the government and under normal circumstances wouldn't have been provided anyways.

But it says nothing about the creation of Monopolies by private industries and companies,

True, it doesn't say anything about [unassisted]* creation of monopolies, and I didn't intend for it to be a reference of the fact that oppressive ones couldn't form. That source is evidence for the assertion that government makes monopolies.

Here is a source that explains the theory of why oppressive/coercive monopolies can't form. Specific focus on the third, tenth, and fourteenth paragraphs.

and in no way supports the belief that corporatism and monopoly stems from government intervention into the economy, rather than the opposite.

If you think it doesn't support that oppressive monopoly stems from government intervention then you obviously didn't read any of it, and the notion that corporatism won't happen in a free-market society is simple application of logic.

[EDIT]*

[Sibirsky]

If we could keep capitalism from turning into corporatism, it would be great. Since we can't, we're better off using either socalism or a mixed market economy with centralized election funding and heavy restrictions on lobbying.

We can.

[Tekania]

Cocialism... no... Sopitalism, yes I prefer Sopitalism.

[Sibirsky]

Who said anything about utopia? I'm pretty sure I didn't. I'm not saying that monopolies won't happen, I'm saying that oppressive monopolies CAN'T happen in a capitalist system.

Andrew Carnegie disagrees.

Andrew Carnegie had regulations in his favor.