Capitalism or socialism?

@MethDozer I can get behind that. But what do you think about subsidizing certain industries (e.g., agriculture, oil) in the interest of national security?

@Paloma Against it. It creates factory farming practices and encourages crops for subsidies instead of what is needed or properly marketable. It hurts the food supply more than it helps it.

@MethDozer capitalism always leads to corporatism/monopolies. You cannot have true capitalism and regulate the market fam

@SW-User But you can have regulated capitalism, no? There's got to be a form of capitalism where the government plays referee and ensures that there's no fraud, monopolies, etc.

@SW-User No it doesn't. Corporations are government created entities. Capitalism here was without them for a long time till the power made them permanent to get more power.Corporatism is directly in defiance to capitalism.

Fact is socialism is superb corporatism except the government IS the corporation.

@Paloma of course! But currently the corporations own politicians. Money must be take out of politics. But nobody will do it

@MethDozer There are many sides to socialism. Not everyone is a leninist communist.

And oh gawd, did u just say the gov creates monopolies and corporations? Lol

@SW-User I can get behind that. Maybe give everyone a cap... you can only spend $1000 (or smaller) on politicians at the most per election cycle. Then (most) everyone's on the same level.

@Paloma not everyone has 1k dollars. The poor cannot even come up with 400 dollars without borrowing most of the time. Money must not play a role in politics

@SW-User Yes. Corporations exist because of governemnt. Research your history. They exist by government. The government doesn't set them up if that's how you misinterpret what I am saying.

@SW-User Good point! My parents surely couldn't afford to donate $1000 to a politician (although plenty of richer families could). Which is why I qualified my suggestion with "(or smaller)." We can go down to $10, if we want to. I don't know what the magic number is, but greater minds could probably figure it out: what is the dollar amount at which the majority of American families would contribute to a political campaign?

@MethDozer they exist because true capitalism is flawed. Capitalism must be regulated at least! I am Keneysan when it comes to capitalism however im a socialist given the choice.

@Paloma Corporations will find a way around it. They always have. Look at the tax code. They fiddle out of it. Money must not play a role. You donate to politicians by casting a vote. We need to restructure politics

@SW-User false. Mercantilism and corporatism are not part of true capitalism and we kept them in check for most of our history until government changed the rules and allowed them. Corporations was one of the things capitalism was trying to suppress in our early days and up till the late 1800's.

Can't be against monopolies and corporations and be a socialist because all that is, is the state becoming the corporate monopoly.

@MethDozer I am a libertarian socialist. Not a lenninist. Socialism has many angles. Just because you havent known of them doesnt mean they dont exist.

What do you think true capitalism is? Is true capitalism regulated capitalism? Because it sounds like we are on the same side of thats what u think true capitalism os

@SW-User So, no donations at all to politicians? But then, how will they afford to host political events, rallies, TV advertisements, etc.? In a world where political donations are prohibited, only the most wealthy politicians will be able to run for office.

@Paloma Okay, you got me there. Good question. Option A. The government gives an equal amount of Money to candidates. Option B. Super Pacs are eradicated and all donations are made transparent with a limit of (~100). I guess im changing my stance to option B until i read up on ot further.

@SW-User I can agree with you on option B :)

@MethDozer [quote]True capitalism, not corporatism. That said not everything should be brought to the market. Academia and medicine have no place there.
[/quote]

Don't agree. True capitalism in the form you suggest has never been tried and never could work. You would just get private monopolies insulated from the actual market forces and the US medical system is a classic example.

@Burnley123 Yes it has. Corporations were outlawed here for a long time and only allowed for brief periods in special.cases to build certain infrastructures and industries. They had time limits. Up until the government created them to further give them power and more central power.

@MethDozer If you want corporations outlawed, then you need a strong state to regulate them and to enforce those regulations. I know that the strongest anti-monopoly laws were implemented in your New Deal period. It was a time when regulation (and government intervention into the market) increased massively.

My point is that there is a fundamental contradiction between being pro-free market and anti-corporatist. If you leave the market unregulated, then monopolies develop. Capital has a historic tendency to be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands unless something is done to prevent it.

@Burnley123 There is no conflict. Corporations exist by government. They exist because they are state recognized.
Biding wealth and owning property is a good thing. Not a bad thing.

@Burnley123 Do you believe that the world is going back to the era of the Roaring Twenties? I honestly believe that the economy will collapse sometime in the future.

@Burnley123 You have it backwards. The whole point of a corporation is to protect its owners from liability, and that protection can only be provided by a strong state. The state is the garantor of those privileges. They don't exist without a state to protect them. It would be cost-prohibitive for them to insulate themselves from liability without the help of tax dollars.

@melloquacious Precisely