wow! where to start?

Capitalism may operate schizophrenically where it comes to human welfare but it is anything but irrational or indifferent. Socialism seemingly is always accompanied by a draconian form of totalitarian dictatorship. Every capitalist society I can think of puts limits on the Capitalist. While it took time, the US now has child labor laws, minimum wages, OSHA, and a whole hierarchy of limitations on pure capitalist free market industrial hell. Art, freedom, the family, religion, all thrive in a capitalist environment and wither in a pure socialist environment. Tired of the US as the example? Compare Sparta and Athens. Everything credited to the Greeks and the Hellenistic era is 100% Athens and 0% Sparta. Sparta took kids from their family to train as soldiers. Weak ones were abandoned in the wilderness. Their idea of art was a bronze spearhead. And many consider this the most pure example of true socialism on a large scale.

Your paragraph that begins "without regulation" is a screaming outrage. Capitalism to date has always evolved to more regulations and less free market extreme. Because it is NOT prone to totalitarianism and dictatorships, it has a chance to evolve. Dictators rarely let their subjects evolve towards more freedom and their nation towards a more free market.

Capitalism is forced by the market to consider non quantitative elements that affect profitability. Your examples are ludicrous. If a dairy farmer used poison in his milk, he would exterminate his market. How is that profitable? The free market takes into account human nature and some philosophical impact on profitability. Whether you lean towards Bentham's pain/pleasure propinquity or Buber's personalism, there are aspects of the equation to maximizing profit that are not obviously reflected in numbers on an income and expense sheet; If there weren't, why would accountants have a category such as good will?

The efficiencies of the soviet union lied more in the totalitarian government than in socialism. Stalin abused the people you say socialism protects in order to industrialize. How many tens of millions of citizens died in order to advance the good of the people? DO you REALLY want to compare that with the abuses which occurred here as the US industrialized? The excesses of the Robber Barons led to reform. Did Stalin's excesses lead to reforms to protect the worker? Hell no! The Pyramids were built by slaves. VERY efficient. Is that efficiency enough of an argument to return to slavery?

I was in the Soviet Union in the decade before the wall came down. The trains were amazingly prompt. You think that is efficient? So efficient that stores had shelves over 50% empty. Classless society? I stayed an a magnificent hotel which normal Soviet citizens were not allowed in. Freedom? The "key lady" on my floor asked me the first time I returned to my room how much it would take to buy my blue jeans, the ones on the bottom of my zipped up suitcase. Human Welfare? No one on bus or train would look up from the floor and certainly not meet my eye. Unless you were there, please don't insult millions and millions of Soviet citizens by saying they were relatively well off as you do in your summation.

As for Europe, on the whole they are no more or less socialist than the US is. All the Western democracies have aspects of socialism and capitalism co-existing.

Cuba? Why have so many Cubans risked life and limb to come to America and so few, if any Americans are fighting to move to Cuba?

in short if you want to discuss theoretical capitalism and theoretical socialism, have fun. But in the real world, the examples are clear, capitalism leads to a better state of affairs for the most people. Let Bentham work out the equation for you.

Capitalism by far is better. I have been reading other arguments and I agree that Socialism sounds great and looks good on paper but it is unrealistic. Karl Marx said that Socialism is the transition to Communism. We all know how that story ends.

First of all, capitalism and socialism are not forms of government. They relate to how economies are organized, and what is privatized (untaxed) and what is socialized (taxed, treated as common treasure).

Actually, my position would be a third way, between socialism as most of us think of it and the sort of capitalism we in the US are used to.

I'd like to refer you to an article which makes the case better than I can. It is online at wealthandwant dot com (among other places) and is called "Henry George and the Reconstruction of Capitalism."

Briefly, I think things which nature (or, if you will, God) provides, and things which are created by the community together rightly belong to the community. This would include non-renewable natural resources, particularly those in short supply, and it includes the value of urban land, which can be awesomely valuable. Individuals and organizations and corporations can't create these things, and so ought not to be able to privatize their economic value. Those who require them ought to compensate the rest of us for what we take.

But once we've compensated our fellows for what we've "enclosed" or privatized (via an annual payment of land rent, or royalties, or a lease payment on a particularly slice of electromagnetic spectrum), we ought to be able to privatize that which we create using it. I'd pay rent to the commons equal to the annual value of the land I wanted as mine, be it a postage stamp lot in the city, or a grand spread in the middle of nowhere, or on the value of, say, 880AM within a 200 mile radius of NYC. As long as I didn't harm my neighbors, I'd have rights to those bits of the commons, and if I made a success of that radio frequency, it would be mine to keep. Mind you, I couldn't turn around and sell the rights to 880AM to someone else at a higher price (except for the duration of my lease on that frequency slice), but I could sell my transmitter and studios and the possibilities of my office and on-air staff staying. On my urban postage stamp, I could place a cottage or a skyscraper, but my rent to the commons would be what the market says that land is worth. If I could afford that rent while keeping just a cottage for myself on the land, fine. If it made sense to build a skyscraper on it, I'd be entitled to keep the portion of the rent which related to the building itself and the services I provided my tenants, while passing along the portion attributed to the locational value.

And 100 years ago, this was known as The Single Tax. The powers that be didn't like it much, but it is still a fine idea. (In fact, the board game Monopoly is based on The Landlord's Game, which was developed to teach the ideas behind The Single Tax.

What is your objection to regulated capitalism?

Your opinion that we should strive towards democratic socialism is nice, but humans are not ants or bees or termites. We're capable of individualism. Your socialist state would have to require dictatorship enforcement otherwise it'll fail. Attempts at democratic socialism in the past have failed for precisely this reason. There'll always be individuals who won't subscribe to the system, who are motivated by greed, success, selfishness, it's human, you and I, we're the same.

There's less pressure to be successful in a Socialist society? Have you been to China? Anyone who's been there will tell you that people strive to study every chance they get, and work many jobs. Kids are forced into school and then extra-curricula activities (which are actually more schools). They make the busiest Westerners look lazy...

You're looking at trade data my friend, that's not production. You make 10 pairs of shoes, but if you only trade 2 pairs for apples, get it? Look at GDP.

The wonderful socialism structure you speak of, where is it? Does it exist without a dictatorial government? I'm looking at China and Vietnam and both countries have a dictatorial communist government where elections are a joke!

Stop talking theories. Regulated capitalism rules :)

Your link lead me to a "page not found" error.

Ok, so we're not talking pure capitalism or socialism. We're talking about something in between. So it's either China's free market model of socialism or the rest of the world's regulated capitalism then?

Well, China is quickly becoming a more productive country, but they're certainly not producing more than the US. I don't know where you're basing your stats on but their GDP certain is not as high as America's.

Where would you rather live? In the rest of the free world or in China? One of the main reasons I don't go for Socialism (even Chinese modern socialism) is that it requires a dictatorial approach to government. You can't have socialism without having TOTAL control. I'd rather regulated capitalism any day. If they're similar in economic results, I'd go for the one where I don't get imprisoned for saying something bad against the government :)

When you're praising Socialism and condemning Capitalism, are you purely talking about the theories? Theoretically I'd love to live in a Socialist society. But if you're talking about reality, please tell me an example of a society where Socialism worked its miracles on its citizens.

Fellows! fellows!

Ok, here's the thing: We all love to put labels on everything because it helps us to refer to it easily by using that label, but sometimes it doesn't help at all!

1 - Ideas such as Socialism and Capitalism are very hard to simply label and they cover many different ideas and so they've been broken down into many different labels and forms.

2 - These 2 labels cover both economy as well as political structures.

In the Socialism camp, there are different forms of it and sometimes they oppose each other even on the most basic of principles. Currently there's a Socialist Market Economy in China where the state only controls certain crucial elements of the economy and the rest is free enterprise..

In the Capitalism camp, there's also no consensus on its definition. There are lots of different types of Capitalism although there are some features about it that most people can agree on.

Now, unless we're arguing PURE Capitalism vs PURE Socialism (actually, I don't think the pure forms exist anywhere in practice), we should actually look at the stuff in between.

Let's remove the labels for a bit and consider these 2 economical political theories as simply ways on how to best operate a country where everyone are happy and everything develop and grow to their best. So, at the present time, we have what people have been labelling as Regulated Capitalism in most democratic countries and some forms of Socialist Market Economy in the dictatorial communist countries. These 2 things are almost the same (as everyone are striving to run a country where people are happy and are well provided for) except for one crucial element: The political systems.

Here's why I would not support a Socialist country: The socialism structure seems to require a dictatorial political system. Dictatorial one party systems will never give humans the freedoms we all naturally yearn for and I don't care how well they think they can run the economy: it's useless to be prosperous when you don't have freedom It's like living in a 5 star prison. Simple.

History has shone that every government that has attempted using Socialism has FAILED. Share the wealth is a load of crap. Why should I give the money that I work hard to earn to a bum with 12 kids that is living completely on wellfare that has never worked a day in his life. Mr.Obama, tell what is fair in that.

-Conserned Conservative

Capitalism. Socialism is an invention of the devil to enslave men.

i don't mind the current policies, but the thing is, i never walked into this country... i was born here. wal-mart is something you can simply just walk into. there's no having to go into wal-mart at all, and as far as i know, no one was ever born inside a wal-mart.

yes, this country can be better (could be less laws for me, or more equal for you), and i believe in fixing it. but that's because a government is something we have to live with. there are plenty of businesses within walking or even driving distance, so if one business isn't doing well, i can go to the other. as they lose money, they work to try and win me back. a country is a little different, we fight for what we believe in (mainly because it's a lot harder to just move from country to country).

by what you said, you sound a lot like those extreme right "love it or leave it" type guys. funny, i always thought you were on the other side of the scale.

it doesn't have to be everyone agreeing to vote against democracy, it only needs the majority. and are you saying you'd just let it happen?

and i chose to walk into wal-mart... wal-mart didn't force me to do shit.

1. if one man rules all and tells everyone what to do, it doesn't matter how he got the power, it matters what he's doing now. we're restricted from any freedom, and it's more natural to revolt. you have to stop seeing things as black and white.

2. it's not just ban drugs, it's all of those things. it's complete control over the lives of individuals. really, the turning point would have to be the banning of guns (as the NRA believes) because that is really our only chance of revolting. the people ban things and then unban them left and right, but that doesn't make it right for them to do so. but that is why wars are fought, for conflicting ideals (revolutionary war would be best example). lets say all of the people decided to ban the right to vote, decided to ban the right to free speech, do you still think it's okay because the majority of people decided it is? do you just live with it?

maybe it's just because "freedom" itself means more to me than it does to others.

1. i think it's more about choice. and yes, i am a "tough shit" type of guy. i don't see why we should be deciding who deserves more than the other. why not let the market decide (which is us technically). people who become mega rich have chosen that path. they've chosen the path of business, no friends, constant paranoia, and excruciating stress. an old saying "Anyone can make money if that's all they want", and it's very true. most of us don't go for that though, why? cause that life sucks for most of us. yes, you have all the money in the world, but that's it. no life, no friends, just work and constant thoughts of suicide.

2. when a person rules everyone and they can't be free within that country because of this individual, it's not just because they're rich and powerful, it's because they're a dictator. violent revolution against a dictator isn't left or right, it's just people saying "we're not gonna take it".

3. i'm not gonna kill you if you become mayor, but if you decide to...

take away guns

ban cigs, drugs, alcohol, porn, etc.

restrict the market and redistribute wealth

...I may actually consider it.

the thing about communism though is that the government decides what is done with these patches of land. they tell the people what to do. i'm referring to make it that no one is told what to do.

a violent revolution can also be considered anarchist, since, that is what results from a violent revolution usually. actually, under communist rule, that is the perfect time to violently revolt.

communism has the government run things, set laws that they feel is for the better good, libertarianism states that no one runs things (when it comes to individual freedoms and the market). since land is a thing that is just there and belongs to the earth, no one can actually own it. now, it's not bad for rich people to own land, but what i'm against is anarcho-capitalism (where they can own everything). it's not that i'm for communism (which means they can't run shit). there are just certain pieces of land that the government keeps (like we have now). highways and streets. but strips and property is still around, nothing against that.

i see that you have a point on the wealthy have the most say (in a warped, but true way), because they create things that the people use. tv for instance. but the thing is, they created it, and the people have decided to use the media as their reference. i just don't believe that restrictions should be made on the market like that.

but it once again ends in you wanting everyone to be set into equal roles where no one has a disadvantage, and i want people to have different things to work for and look forward to. this, of course, leading to some who become wealthy and others who become homeless.

How ridiculous. Chavez and Castro exercise sole and complete control over the army and police. How does that promote personal freedom, democracy or anything positive? Their states are just as totalitarian as the USSR and North Korea. Chavez has improved his nation's prosperity by stealing . . . I mean nationalizing, assets of US Corporations which would never have existed in his country without capitalism in ours.

Cuba's standard of living is skewed upwards by high literacy and good health care. The financial situation is a disaster since the Soviets stopped subsidizing the economy in 1990. Buying power of the average Cuban is negligible by US standards. If the US was wiling to destroy our financial structure as Cuba has, we could elevate any of our problem areas too. If our infrastructure was in the state of Cuba's, we could pump all of that money into our schools or health care systems. You can look at all the websites and quote all the numbers you want. I was in the Soviet Union. My mom lived in Cuba before Batista and was back on a mission two years ago. Ask her the difference in the standard of living. What hasn't changed is the people. They still smile, they still play baseball and music and dance and are happy. The Cubans are wonderful people. And they were just as wonderful in the 40s and 50s. They are just a little more beat up today than they were then.

Your assertion that the average citizen in the Soviet Union was as well off as the average citizen in the West is utterly unsupportable. By all accounts?? I am here to tell you I was there and by MY account, that is pure bunk. I met with and spent time with Soviet citizens in 5 different cities as part of my mission. I spent days with them each. Again, if efficiency is your measure of value, we should be discussing monarchy vs dictatorship. If human welfare is the measure, there just isn't any comparison.

The fact that you think Cuba is honest in how it reports statistics is sad commentary on your comprehension of communism.

Have you ever been to cuba? How about any country that is opressed by a dictator? I've been to Korea and I know the pretty piture they paint for you. They want you to believe that everything on their side of the fence is better and that their people are being taken care of. Sure they have sky scrapers apartments, but they have no running water and no electricity. That means that they have to fetch water and cary the pails up hundreds of stairs. I don't look at water and electricity as luxeries I see them as a nessessity. How can our world have the technology that is has to create power for the entire world but yet deprive your own country. North Koreans are not able to talk to their families in South Korea. Kim Yong-IL knows that ignorance is bliss and that knowledge is power. The Berlin wall was not bulit to keep people out... besides by even suggesting that Socilaism/ Communism is economicly better suggests that you also agree with Genocide. Rethink your stance on life and how American's and Capitalist don't charish it. The next time your in a Commie country think about staying.

Wow. The one baby act is actually an beneficial idea especially in the sort of environmental/resource crisis we are in. They are actually doing something to help future generations where we look at it as a choice. We are the beholders of a choice that could end humanity. Lastly if anyone in this world had principles (which capitalism does NOT support) then all of this would seem ridiculous to the eyes of free thinkers (also not promoted by capitalism). If you looked at it from an objective standpoint i would believe you would be saying much different things.