Well i'll define socialism and communism as they are actually defined. socialism - A system where the means to production are socially (publically, socially or state) owned rather than run to private profit. Even marx only ever intended this as a stepping stoned between capitalism and communism, it was never meant as a permanent solution. communism - a stateless, classless society without money where the means to production are owned commonly (due to the lack of a government). As a side note most of the places that have claimed to be communist (USSR, mao's China ...) have been heavily socialist states, as a 'communist state' is an oxymoron.
Not really, you're just referring to the Marxist definition of socialism. There are hundreds of variants and offshoots of socialism, not all of them are trying to move towards a classless, stateless "dictatorship of the proleteriat" society.
Even so, most states are already pushed into subsidizing corporations because they threaten to move their business elsewhere, so the free market is destroyed because one company has an edge over the others.
States subsidize corporations because it's how you get reelected as a state official (Boeing, GE, etc.) I'd rather it be the states regulating versus the federal government, much more expensive to maintain a firm grip on your respective industry through underhanded tactics. Just by transferring the regulatory authority from the federal government to the states alone, you begin to break up the collusion of big business and big government. It's not a free market yet, but it's a hell of a lot closer then what you previously had. As a voter though, you can vote against these sort of initiatives, leaders that are susceptible to big corporate money, etc. Your vote carries more weight out of a population of 10 million versus 150 million. Peoples' attitudes have to change, and that is the toughest part. "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. " - Thomas Jefferson
Lol (destroyed?)... if we addressed the reasons a business would like to move elsewhere (taxes, regulations) then there wouldn't be any problem. Subsidizing the business rather than letting it leave would be even worse for consumers.
Would anyone believe me if I said this question is the same as the chicken or egg conundrum? Does big business first emerge and take control of the government via lobbying for advantageous regulation, or does the government emerge with the ability to write advantageous regulation which big business then lobbies for. Either way, the problem ultimately is the government. These corporations could not exist without the ability to lobby for and write regulations that give them a competitive advantage. This is by no means downplaying the evilness of the CEO's and the like who take advantage of these problems at the expense the people. All I am saying is the enabler is equally at fault. Evil motherfuckers are evil. I don't care what you call yourself, the fact of the matter is that ultimately we let this happen and we shouldn't have. I can't particularly blame you and I, but you know what I mean. It is our responsibility, if we wish to live in a free society, not to let these problems arise.
Is this a serious question? "Quarrel over which is a better system"? Unfortunately you've missed the great intellectual boat that sailed some time ago. Free Market Capitalism beats Socialism hands down. It's nice to tout the moral high ground - I'm pretty sure this 'worker's own the means of... blah blah blah' romancing that the kids are spinning as socialism is great for dropping panties but unfortunately it's still garbage when it comes to accomplishing anything. You want to own the means of production? You have a system that forces government to heel to your rights, not the other way around.
Business's only "threaten" to move their production overseas because regulation makes it more profitable this way. The states are not being pushed into subsidizing the business by business. Whats really happening, is the people ( where the government money originates from) are being forced into subsidizing business, by the state. They leech off of the private portion of the economy, and use the left over on subsidies ( in the situation you are describing) to clean up the mess they made regulating.
This is the part that fucks people up, and causes them to deny the truth. They are afraid of what they, and world would like like after making such a realization.
I wouldn't say the enabler is equally at fault, I'd say the enabler is almost totally at fault. How can you blame a corporation for accepting a bailout or passing regulations that hurt it's competitors? That's what businesses try to do, maximize profits. The blame can't be placed on them for taking handouts, the blame is on the one giving the handouts. There should be no one with the power or ability to give a handout, that's how it stops.
I agree. It's a joke of a topic to debate. Capitalism wins in every area that can be compared. Most moral system, check. Best system for overall prosperity, check. System that has been shown to work throughout history, check. It's an extremely one sided debated. I'm constantly amazed that there are so many who take the side of statist control considering that it has clearly been shown to fail over, and over, and over, and over, throughout history.
Well, first, I never claimed any country to be communist. In fact, the countries you just named weren't socialist by any means as well. Socialism, initially was concieved before communism, and Marx used socialism as a means towards communism, however socialism was never intended to be a step between communism. Also, a lot of you are diverting this subject to regulation. This isn't about free markets verses regulation (since socialism can exist in a completely anarchist society). The main definition of socialism (workers owning the means of production) has barely been touched upon and is the main difference between capitalism and socialism. This Libertarian Party circle jerk going on here is tiring, to say the least. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wriQGI5NGOM]Noam Chomsky - Libertarian Socialism Contradicting terms - YouTube[/ame] Also, what do you all think of environmental problems? How can these problems be addressed in a free market capitalist system, where, as you can see, businesses don't care about the natural capital they degrade. Thomas Jefferson was no free market capitalist. He was a libertarian in the traditional meaning of the term. "Your idea of the moral obligations of governments are perfectly correct. The man who is dishonest as a statesman would be a dishonest man in any station. It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings collected together are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately ... I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country. Present me respectfully to Mrs. Logan and accept yourself my friendly and respectful salutations." -Thomas Jefferson, 1816.
State regulation if your talking about a free market constitutionalist US also advocacy groups, consumers (if you disagree with a corporation don't buy the product) lawsuits, basically many many ways. The EPA is a patsy of corporate america and the Military Defense Complex. There is a revolving door between massive polluting corporations and EPA bureaucrats.
So you think state regulation is okay? Doesn't this contradict your original position? (Also, consumers aren't educated on the environment, nor, at the end of the day, care about it on a significant scale.)
State regulation is much preferable to Federal regulation for a variety of reasons 1) Its Constitutional. 2) Its a lot harder for a corporation to control 50 legislatures then it is for the them to control 1. (the US Congress) 3) States better reflect the wishes of the people. and many more. *The only reason consumers are not educated about their environmental impact is due to a government run education system. This is the system we would have if we lived in a constitutional Republic rather than our current corrupt, corporatist, fascist state.
So you don't care about regulation, you just care if it is easy to hijack? In theory regulation is okay in your book? Because my support of government regulation has nothing to do with the current government. My ideal system would look much different than the current system and much more democratic in this respect. And I don't think so. Most people, whether exposed to really good education or really bad education in school, could care less about something which probably won't directly affect them. It is much more of a philosophical choice. This requires an entity to protect the environment, and, in reality, all life on Earth.