Political & Elections

BCEagle91 · Senior Member

RE: Socialism vs. Capitalism: The Showdown

BigG · Guru

One of many,

http://www.suite101.com/content/robert-owen-and-utopian-socialism-a119434

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

collective control of collective production and collective resources. A world system, though managing at the local level is more efficient for many things.

This doesn't answer my question. What is "collective production"? Describe this to me. What are "collective resources"? How do you determine who is justified in using them at any given point in time?

Will money be used in such a society? How will it emerge if there is no marketplace? How will you chose whether to utilize resources for long term or short term production processes? How will you chose what materials to use? How will you conduct trade with other nations? How will you determine the most effective methods of production without competition? How do you determine whether you are creating value when utilizing a given set of resources without the indicator that is profit and loss? How will you determine whether to consume or invest (and in what degree)?

In other words, how will you coordinate without the price mechanism?

I say "you" instead of "society" for purposes of convenience.

These are just a few of the questions you'd need to answer (I'm sure someone who actually participates in entrepreneurship and investment world can name a thousand more) to have your ideas even in the same ballpark as capitalism.

http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf

http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/I,%20Pencil%202006.pdf

Billy · Senior Member

This goes against human nature, individually and collectively.

It is rather absurd to speculate given that we have no way to get to where you want to go, because of human nature.
Yes, every time radical social change is attempted, its opposition declares it "against human nature", when there is actually no law of human nature opposing it. Go talk to Hobbes about Democracy.

Two world superpowers can't even control a small state like North Korea.
Who's the second? China? More a regional power than a world superpower. However, the US is tip-toeing around because it isn't sure how China feels about it. Hell, China also claims all of the Yellow Sea. We don't want a war with China.

BCEagle91 · Senior Member

This goes against human nature, individually and collectively.

It is rather absurd to speculate given that we have no way to get to where you want to go, because of human nature.

Two world superpowers can't even control a small state like North Korea.

Science Fiction is the only place where you see this sort of thing and it usually gets ripped up by externalities.

> Collective control of collective production and collective resources. A world system,
> though managing at the local level is more efficient for many things.

Billy · Senior Member

Does anybody have a solution to the calculation problem yet? How are recourses going to be allocated effectively in the absence of market prices? Please don't neglect the fact that our *entire* economy is coordinated through the price mechanism.
Collective control of collective production and collective resources. A world system, though managing at the local level is more efficient for many things.

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

So, I missed the whole debate. Wonderful...

Does anybody have a solution to the calculation problem yet? How are recourses going to be allocated effectively in the absence of market prices? Please don't neglect the fact that our *entire* economy is coordinated through the price mechanism.

Abyss · Senior Member

john doe wrote:

From what I just read, sounds like a bit of old technology - 200 mm instead of 300 mm fab and 130 nm is not state of the art.

How does this relate to manufacturing facilities providing jobs for median intelligence workers?

I'm sure you're about to let me know.

john doe · Guru

From what I just read, sounds like a bit of old technology - 200 mm instead of 300 mm fab and 130 nm is not state of the art.

Abyss · Senior Member

john doe wrote:

no - I'm curious to understand more of what they do there.

It's shuttered, I believe.

john doe · Guru

no - I'm curious to understand more of what they do there.

Abyss · Senior Member

john doe wrote:

And what type of litho equipment to they use for the .13 node?

And this is relevant to the employment characteristics of that production facility?

john doe · Guru

And what type of litho equipment to they use for the .13 node?

Abyss · Senior Member

john doe wrote:

Could you go into a bit of detail as to what D2 is?

D2 is a major Intel production facility in Santa Clara.

john doe · Guru

Could you go into a bit of detail as to what D2 is?

Abyss · Senior Member

john doe wrote:

"Even with chip fabs there are quite a few jobs for lower educated people."

What "chip fabs" are these that you're referring to?

Something like D2.

john doe · Guru

"Even with chip fabs there are quite a few jobs for lower educated people."

What "chip fabs" are these that you're referring to?

BigG · Guru

Good points.

Abyss · Senior Member

The question isn't whether bankers do something productive - the question is whether their compensation is worth it on an economy wide scale. Furthermore, the question is what these people could be doing in other roles in our economy if finance was less lucrative.

We are putting forth massive amounts of human capital deciding what optimal trading strategies are - at the expense of other value added activities (creating new technology, etc).

Finance, by and large, provides very little job opportunity for "median intelligence" Americans. Other industries like automotive manufacturing can provide jobs for people with a high school diploma. Finance offers very, very, few opportunities for that. Even with chip fabs there are quite a few jobs for lower educated people.

-- Edited by Abyss on Sunday 28th of November 2010 04:50:12 PM

-- Edited by Abyss on Sunday 28th of November 2010 04:50:36 PM

BigG · Guru

I will grudgeingly admit bankers can possibly, perhaps, sometimes be part of the productive captalist sector but can morph into part of the socialist sector when they screw up.

Life is unfair.

BCEagle91 · Senior Member

What would you call what the bankers do?

BigG · Guru

I know! Let's set up a concurrently captalist and socialist system.

The capitalist part of the system encourages and rewards production.

The socialist part collects some, or even most, of the output of the capitalists and distributes these outputs to everybody.

Let's call the collected outputs "taxes".

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 28th of November 2010 11:57:45 AM

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 28th of November 2010 11:58:40 AM

BCEagle91 · Senior Member

> First off, the idea that someone should be paid more for talent
> sounds wrong, as talent is a natural thing people are born
> with. Thus, you are discriminating based on something people cannot
> control.

Well, you can try to pin something on me ("discrimination") or you can
just look at the natural order of life. You think of the world in
terms of money as it is fungible and controllable by central bankers
(up to a point as global debt problems are causing major headaches
around the world). Suppose someone has a talent for finding gold
mineral deposits. They could just go and find the gold by themselves
and make orders of magnitude more money (gold) than others could.

Even a "socialist" understands the issue of supply and demand. Do you
recall Michael Dukakis' Belgian Endive remark? For those that don't
recall it, he was on the campaign trail in Iowa talking to a group of
corn and soybean farmers and told them that they should grow Belgian
Endive because there was a relative scarcity of it. The comment was
naive because the overall demand for Belgian Endive is small but it
does illustrate that market dynamics are understood by most, even a
guy on the political spectrum like Michael Dukakis. Why shouldn't
market economics apply to talents too?

> Hard-work, on the other hand, is a different matter. Everyone should
> work hard to support society and all of humanity.

This runs counter to human nature. People will work hard to survive.
People will work hard to amass things or even for philanthropy. A few
people will work hard to support society but usually when their other
lower-order needs have been met.

> This idea may seem alien to some people now, but it would only be
> difficult for the first generation or two. Then, as society preaches
> the common good and working together, much like it now glorifies
> greed, wealth, and competition, children brought up in such a
> society will act like that.

Perhaps you could provide a historical example where this exists. The
current examples of North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba aren't particularly
encouraging. On the other hand, we have the Asian Tigers which have
moved from third-world status to first-world status while doing a
pretty good job at providing social supports in fiercely capitalistic
economic systems. These are real and tangible stories.

> Much like the Civil Rights laws forced a change that is now viewed
> as normal by most young people, except those raised by racist
> parents who accept those views. Many will be able to see that it is
> worth it, that all might have what they need to live. Common goals
> for humanity, such as space exploration and colonization, may help
> as well.

Singapore is a small island with four main races and four main
religions. They have far more peace in the areas of race and religion
than we have in the United States. That doesn't mean that they don't
have a capitalistic system. They look for best and most pragmatic
solution in any area. If it's socialistic and works, fine. If it's
capitalistic and works, that's fine too. Society needn't be binary.

pmrlcomm · Senior Member

I have no issues with equal opportunity. Someone shouldn't be forced to listen to me play the piano when there is someone out there like Mozart. Just because you try really hard doesn't mean you are good at it and can make a living with it.

Cuse0507 · Veteran Member

Equality of opportunity is what we should strive for. Actual absolute social and economic equality is terribly frightening, though.

pmrlcomm · Senior Member

Human nature would never allow this "utopia" that you desire. Regardless of skills or talents if I bust my butt at what I do I will move ahead of others that do the same job (with some exceptions---unions being one notable one). My skills or talents determine the pay and benefits I receive for my hard work. If all I'm capable of is flipping burgers then I will only have so much earning potential and no one should owe me more than I can earn. Sorry, we'll have to agree to not be in the same universe on this one.

Billy · Senior Member

I think that this fundamentally runs counter to several elements of human
behavior. Young children will compare themselves to their siblings or friends
from an early age. People display different talents, abilities and drive and think
it fairly natural to receive larger rewards for more effort or talent. In many areas,
this is natural.
First off, the idea that someone should be paid more for talent sounds wrong, as talent is a natural thing people are born with. Thus, you are discriminating based on something people cannot control. Hard-work, on the other hand, is a different matter. Everyone should work hard to support society and all of humanity. This idea may seem alien to some people now, but it would only be difficult for the first generation or two. Then, as society preaches the common good and working together, much like it now glorifies greed, wealth, and competition, children brought up in such a society will act like that. Much like the Civil Rights laws forced a change that is now viewed as normal by most young people, except those raised by racist parents who accept those views. Many will be able to see that it is worth it, that all might have what they need to live. Common goals for humanity, such as space exploration and colonization, may help as well.

Yesterday, a car cut in front of me from two lanes over in a major NH shopping
area. The car had loads of liberal bumper stickers but the one that caught my
eye was the one saying that healthcare is a right, not a commodity. It was on a
car with MA plates. There are a lot of MA residents that drive up to NH to buy
things to avoid sales taxes and high taxes on alcohol and tobacco. If you want to
support universal healthcare (which MA has), then why shop in NH? Well, it's
pretty obvious - to pay less in taxes. The drive to do that is only natural, even if
the person's words state what they think that they really feel.
If you have bordering different zones of taxation, then the temptation is there. A world system, managed locally, would be more efficient.

How do we get to the place where you don't have that choice?
Revolution, one way or another. With the democratic institutions of the United States, it would be quite peaceful, if radical.

There are countries that have figured this out and have implemented plans to get there. In general, education is front and center to getting there. It feels like there is balkanization of social and private institutions in the US and everyone is getting what they can while they can as the future looks bleak. The long-term future. We are headed in the wrong direction. Parents don't know how to raise children and they're growing up wild without the skills to support the country when they become adults
Education is vital, as it gives people the tools to think freely and do what is right. Furthermore, it is a way of empowering all people. I agree that the US may have a bleak future if things continue downward, but I would like to believe that we will stop it. We have the ability to, we must do it.

-- Edited by Billy on Sunday 28th of November 2010 05:49:32 AM

BCEagle91 · Senior Member

> I am saying that I advocate a classless, stateless, world system where all
> people are equal, the connection between all workers is beneficial, there
> is a democratic economy, and people don't need to choose between
> exploitation and death (the former usually leads to the latter anyway).

I think that this fundamentally runs counter to several elements of human
behavior. Young children will compare themselves to their siblings or friends
from an early age. People display different talents, abilities and drive and think
it fairly natural to receive larger rewards for more effort or talent. In many areas,
this is natural.

Yesterday, a car cut in front of me from two lanes over in a major NH shopping
area. The car had loads of liberal bumper stickers but the one that caught my
eye was the one saying that healthcare is a right, not a commodity. It was on a
car with MA plates. There are a lot of MA residents that drive up to NH to buy
things to avoid sales taxes and high taxes on alcohol and tobacco. If you want to
support universal healthcare (which MA has), then why shop in NH? Well, it's
pretty obvious - to pay less in taxes. The drive to do that is only natural, even if
the person's words state what they think that they really feel.

> Can you really say that a system wherein millions of people are forced to choose
> between exploitation and starvation is better? Maybe it seems like that to someone
> near the top, but in the best interest of humanity, which world sounds better?

How do we get to the place where you don't have that choice?

There are countries that have figured this out and have implemented plans to get there. In general, education is front and center to getting there. It feels like there is balkanization of social and private institutions in the US and everyone is getting what they can while they can as the future looks bleak. The long-term future. We are headed in the wrong direction. Parents don't know how to raise children and they're growing up wild without the skills to support the country when they become adults.

Billy · Senior Member

Are you saying that you would rather have people in third world countries starve to death as opposed to take dangerous jobs?
If the choice really is between being maimed and starving to death, then Yes. Yes they are better off. Do you believe that death is better than being injured? Lets say someone was in a car accident and permanently lost the function of his right arm, would you be in favor of euthanasia to "put the person out of their misery"? What if you knew that the person wanted to live (as these people who took the dangerous job likely do)?
What if the company never came in the first place (as you are suggesting is a good thing)? In this case wouldn't the family starve? So when the company comes in, isn't it saving the lives of the family? Again, would you rather have the family starve to death, or work at a dangerous job?
I am saying that I advocate a classless, stateless, world system where all people are equal, the connection between all workers is beneficial, there is a democratic economy, and people don't need to choose between exploitation and death (the former usually leads to the latter anyway).

Can you really say that a system wherein millions of people are forced to choose between exploitation and starvation is better? Maybe it seems like that to someone near the top, but in the best interest of humanity, which world sounds better?

amazing · Veteran Member

"If it's the only job available, they'll take it to stop the starvation/eviction/death of their family. Your argument could be used to say we should abolish all labor laws, because if people don't want to take bad jobs, they don't have to. Except in a society where one needs money to live, one must make money."

Are you saying that you would rather have people in third world countries starve to death as opposed to take dangerous jobs?

"You're right, those maimed 4 year-olds working in Nike sweatshops are far better off. Their family may be able to eat every once in a while, at least. That means it's a good thing, right? ...Right?"

If the choice really is between being maimed and starving to death, then Yes. Yes they are better off. Do you believe that death is better than being injured? Lets say someone was in a car accident and permanently lost the function of his right arm, would you be in favor of euthanasia to "put the person out of their misery"? What if you knew that the person wanted to live (as these people who took the dangerous job likely do)?

"If they leave, their family starves. If they stay (or take the job in the first place), they toil for pennies on the dollar and work in dangerous conditions for long hours with no benefits."

What if the company never came in the first place (as you are suggesting is a good thing)? In this case wouldn't the family starve? So when the company comes in, isn't it saving the lives of the family? Again, would you rather have the family starve to death, or work at a dangerous job?

"Nearly. Enough so that the rare good ones can almost never radically reform the system.

Right, we all know that what is in the best interest of oppressive Chinese leaders is what is in the best interest of their poor citizens. It is something that deeply concerns them. China doesn't even have the worst of it."

Fair point.

-- Edited by amazing on Saturday 27th of November 2010 03:55:15 PM

BCEagle91 · Senior Member

There are problems in capitalism with monopolies and the way that we run things means that you need to be in the top few in your area or you have serious issues with economies of scale (unless you have a niche that the big guys don't care about). I work for a company like that and it is nice that the company makes tons of money and shares it with employees.

The downside is that much of our competition no longer exists.

Microsoft is an excellent example of what can happen to a company when it has no competition.

Intel around 2003-2005 was in the same position.

Singapore does a pretty nice job balancing free-market mechanisms and state control mechanisms. They've gone from the third-world to the first world in about fifty years. They also have the highest concentration of millionaires in the world (I believe the study was looking at residents with a million dollars in investible assets and not including primary residence).

Billy · Senior Member

Now we're arguing Socialist vs. Capitalist again (thankfully). My other post had just been saying that a Socialist viewpoint would condemn such practices, though it would also condemn the system at large.

Billy · Senior Member

As for unemployed people, well if the job is so bad that being unemployed is better than the job then they wouldn't take the job.
If it's the only job available, they'll take it to stop the starvation/eviction/death of their family. Your argument could be used to say we should abolish all labor laws, because if people don't want to take bad jobs, they don't have to. Except in a society where one needs money to live, one must make money.

(What I am saying is that no matter how "bad" you think a job is, if people are choosing to take the job, it must be better than what they were doing before, and is therefore a net benefit and therefore is a good thing)
You're right, those maimed 4 year-olds working in Nike sweatshops are far better off. Their family may be able to eat every once in a while, at least. That means it's a good thing, right? ...Right?

You say that the workers become dependent. I'm going to interprete this as meaning that the job that the company offers starts out as "good" but after a while it becomes "bad". The problem with this argument is that if the job turns bad then people would just quit and do what they were doing before.
If they leave, their family starves. If they stay (or take the job in the first place), they toil for pennies on the dollar and work in dangerous conditions for long hours with no benefits.

Also, if outsourcing really is so bad for third world countries, then why do they allow it? Are all of the leaders corrupt? Every last one of them?
Nearly. Enough so that the rare good ones can almost never radically reform the system.

Also, we don't hear China complaining that they are creating all of the worlds goods. Quite the contrary they are keeping their currency artificially low so as to increase their exports, if it was bad for them they would certainly have the power to stop it. They are growing like crazy, and its because we are outsourcing everything to them.
Right, we all know that what is in the best interest of oppressive Chinese leaders is what is in the best interest of their poor citizens. It is something that deeply concerns them. China doesn't even have the worst of it.

amazing · Veteran Member

Billy wrote:

The workers in the third world countries are being exploited, through extremely low wages (illegal in the US) and terrible working conditions (few or no labor laws, and little enforcement). The workers in the US are losing jobs, while the capitalists are growing in wealth. Furthermore, it is a practice of neocolonialism wherein the third world country becomes economically dependent upon this first world country. But worse than that, on this country's corrupt, profit-driven corporations. It is bad for both sets of workers, as discussed by Marx. Thus, uniting all workers and having universal labor laws is in the best interest of all but the most wealthy.

The view of a true socialist.

-- Edited by Billy on Saturday 27th of November 2010 02:06:19 PM

I've heard the whole "companies are exploiting workers" argument but I have yet to have someone adequately explain it to me.

People have a choice as to whether they want to work for someone or not. So if a company comes in a starts offering really dangerous jobs that don't pay a lot, no one would quit their current job to take the bad job. As for unemployed people, well if the job is so bad that being unemployed is better than the job then they wouldn't take the job. If the job is better, then they would take it, and the new job is increasing their welfare. (What I am saying is that no matter how "bad" you think a job is, if people are choosing to take the job, it must be better than what they were doing before, and is therefore a net benefit and therefore is a good thing)

You say that the workers become dependent. I'm going to interprete this as meaning that the job that the company offers starts out as "good" but after a while it becomes "bad". The problem with this argument is that if the job turns bad then people would just quit and do what they were doing before.

The only two possible ways that the argument works is if the new jobs from the company causes other jobs to permanently disappear (thus allowing the company to make their jobs "bad" as soon as all the "good" jobs are gone and people cant switch to the good jobs). The other way is if you believe that people are stupid and can't tell the difference between a good job and a bad job, allowing the company to trick people into working for them.

Also, if outsourcing really is so bad for third world countries, then why do they allow it? Are all of the leaders corrupt? Every last one of them?

Also, we don't hear China complaining that they are creating all of the worlds goods. Quite the contrary they are keeping their currency artificially low so as to increase their exports, if it was bad for them they would certainly have the power to stop it. They are growing like crazy, and its because we are outsourcing everything to them.

Billy · Senior Member

Given these assumptions, yes you would be right in saying that it is bad for America to outsource jobs. But what you are ignoring is that it is good for the country that is gaining the jobs! And in the vast majority of outsourcing cases the jobs are going from a rich country like America to a poor 3rd world country. So in these circumstances, outsourcing is nothing more than intercountry wealth redistribution where wealth goes from rich countries to poor countries. Something that a socialist should heartilly approve of.
The workers in the third world countries are being exploited, through extremely low wages (illegal in the US) and terrible working conditions (few or no labor laws, and little enforcement). The workers in the US are losing jobs, while the capitalists are growing in wealth. Furthermore, it is a practice of neocolonialism wherein the third world country becomes economically dependent upon this first world country. But worse than that, on this country's corrupt, profit-driven corporations. It is bad for both sets of workers, as discussed by Marx. Thus, uniting all workers and having universal labor laws is in the best interest of all but the most wealthy.

The view of a true socialist.

-- Edited by Billy on Saturday 27th of November 2010 02:06:19 PM

amazing · Veteran Member

romanigypsyeyes wrote:

I am NOT a fan of complete socialism nor complete capitalism. We currently live in a MIX of the two and I just want to see us move further to the socialistic side and away from the things that our current "capitalistic" society wastes money on. We need to get rid of the waste and redistribute that money to bettering our country. I also think we need to stop doing things that are hurting us like shipping out all of our jobs.

-- Edited by romanigypsyeyes on Wednesday 17th of November 2010 07:18:31 PM

Alright, you are definitely holding contradictory opinions.

You think think that the government should redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor because the rich are using up to much resources. So as to better our country.

But in the very next sentence you say that shipping away jobs is a bad idea.

To me, it makes no sense that you could believe both of these statements. Let me explain.

First of all lets just ignore all the of supply and demand, and comparative advantage arguments that say that outsourcing is actually good for both countries involved. For the sake of making a point, lets just say that outsourcing is a zero sum game and it is bad for the country losing the jobs, and equally good for the country gaining them.

Given these assumptions, yes you would be right in saying that it is bad for America to outsource jobs. But what you are ignoring is that it is good for the country that is gaining the jobs! And in the vast majority of outsourcing cases the jobs are going from a rich country like America to a poor 3rd world country. So in these circumstances, outsourcing is nothing more than intercountry wealth redistribution where wealth goes from rich countries to poor countries. Something that a socialist should heartilly approve of.

That is... unless you think that the average American is somehow better than people in other countries and therefore "deserves" to be hundreds of times richer the average person in a 3rd world country. I just don't see how you could value a poor person in America any different than a poor person in a 3rd world country. And chances are the poor person in the 3rd world country needs the money a lot more than the person in America.

BigG · Guru

When they have all the factories, they will no longer have to keep their currency artificially low.

The only true measure of the "wealth" of a nation; If push comes to shove can we use this asset to build stuff to kill people?

Office towers and strip malls comprise much of the "wealth" of the US.

But because of government subsidies for defense industries, we are in good shape for war material.

Outside intervention by whom? If the NAZI's had had nukes, we would have made a "separate peace" with them and they would still have Europe.

The Chinese have nukes.

-- Edited by BigG on Wednesday 24th of November 2010 06:45:12 PM

-- Edited by BigG on Wednesday 24th of November 2010 06:45:52 PM

Billy · Senior Member

Fascism inevitably falls to revolution, if not to outside intervention, and the Chinese economic growth, a result of keeping their currency artificially low, is unsustainable.

Billy, what is "democracy"?
Literally: Demos Kratos, "Power to the People"

As we use it: A political, social, or economic system wherein each rational member of society has equal say in the course of that society.

BigG · Guru

The future belongs, not to socialism or capitalism, but to Chinese style fascism. The central government decides which markets to target, then incentivizes private interests to pursue them. This system is capable of reconciling the short time horizon of private business with long term societal goals.

The current rare earth market corner is a case in point. The Chinese have been working for decades to eliminate competitors and become a "sole supplier". Then they cut supplies to foreign customers. The "corner" is aimed not just at rare earths themselves but the high tech electrical machinery market. If Japan wants to build hybrids, they have to buy Chinese parts. The same logic applies to wind farm electrical machinery.

But what of the "magic of the marketplace"? Markets can only work when a soverign nuclear armed power is NOT manipulating them.

Fascism is NOT my preference but when we look at the trends, that is the way things are evolving.

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

Billy, what is "democracy"?

Billy · Senior Member

Benevolent dictatorship, with me as supreme ruler. Of course.
Ah, in the style of Plato's Philosopher King?

(yes, I know you're joking)

Abyss · Senior Member

Billy wrote:

I'm not advocating Democracy. I'm merely saying that a focus on median citizen wealth is sustainable.
So not a fan of democracy? Or the rights of all, as opposed to the rights of just some?

Care to explain why?

Benevolent dictatorship, with me as supreme ruler. Of course.

Billy · Senior Member

I'm not advocating Democracy. I'm merely saying that a focus on median citizen wealth is sustainable.
So not a fan of democracy? Or the rights of all, as opposed to the rights of just some?

Care to explain why?

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

You'd think this reasoning would lead to the opposite conclusion, but I guess not.

Americans are a stubborn people.

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

Considering how badly the systems we know about are performing right now, no one wants to "strike off" into the unknown.

You'd think this reasoning would lead to the opposite conclusion, but I guess not.

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

Well, a socialist economy is democratic

Care to explain how the operation of a single, central agency in determining all economic action is in any aspect democratic?

our current economy is an economic oligarchy of the rich.

In many ways, yes.

If you have another option, please offer it.

I suggest abolishing economic monopolies of law, defense, post, etc.

pmrlcomm · Senior Member

Good old fear of the unknown.

BigG · Guru

Considering how badly the systems we know about are performing right now, no one wants to "strike off" into the unknown.

Billy · Senior Member

Yuck. Can I say, "neither"?
Well, a socialist economy is democratic, and our current economy is an economic oligarchy of the rich.

If you have another option, please offer it.

Disappointingly enough, no one has chosen "Something else entirely!" in the forum's poll.

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

Is not a democratic economy superior to an economic oligarchy of the rich, if you wish to advance democratic ideals?

Yuck. Can I say, "neither"?