A new liberalism for the 21st century--I think it could work.

[Hot_Handz]

Socialism is simply a means to the end of which is Communism.....

Marx believed that it had to happen in the following order...

Feudalism - which is the "embryonic" stage...Kings and Queens resist the realization of the people who can produce commodities...refine education etc. etc. (i.e. British Empire)

Capitalism - The revolution (break off from England) which in turn creates a demand based society where goods and services are produced for surplus value...but also culture....our modern (or heyday) America...

Socialism - Within Capitalism sets of contradictions occur (bureaucracy being the glaring example)....This is where the wage disparity takes place and the people recognize their interests and become class conscious.

This is exactly what is happening now.....

Communism - Communism assumes every external enemy is negated...no division of labor, nobody would want to move as an individual because everybody would be able to do what they please and achieve self-actualization through the commune...

I won't go into the inherent flaws of Communism...and it was a very rough simplification of the loop. But this is what it is... This is exactly how Marxist theory works.

And it's so simple to understand why Socialism is a gateway, because it is....

[Robin Rossi]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Communism is when the government owns the means of production.
Socialism is when "the people" own the means of production.
Capitalism is when a private entity owns the means of production.

Your answer is an over-simplification, i.e. there is more to it than that.

To me, there is Freedom (including economic freedom, i.e. Capitalism), then there is "everything else" (all to be avoided/opposed).

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by Hot_Handz

It doesn't matter WHY they were in the position of being saved by the government...the point is, they WERE.

This just goes to show you the natural paradigm of political ideology. Either you let the market decide....or, you are simply feeding the cancer that is the state.

EDIT: The big issue here is that people are still looking at the political shift in the vacuum of the United States.....it has gone well beyond that scope now.

A global state is a very real thing.

If we had a true capitalist system, those companies wouldn't "be saved by the government". Ones that are managed well and successfully would survive and thrive, while those that took excessive risks or made bad decisions would fail. Business would learn...and avoid the choices that caused the failure of those that went t*ts up.

Yet our modern "corporatist" system is an anathma to lassiz faire capitalism. We have business "in bed" with government, looking for special favors, for benefits to themselves and for the government to crush their competition. When they make bad decisions, they line up for a government handout, like the worst welfare queen.

Look at things like Fannie and Freddie. We have the government backing loans and encouraging (and in many ways mandating) that banks process loans to individuals with no means of paying them back. Yet, the banks are simply processing loans, they aren't backing them with their depositers money, they are handing out the taxpayers money. This isn't lassiz faire capitalism. Nor is it when "the Fed" hands out money to the banks to make loans.

Most of our current problems are not due to capitalism, they are associated with the dumbed down mix of capitalism and what is essentially communism within our "corporatist" system.

eta...to be consistent, "corporatism" is much like the socialism/communism/liberal/conservative discussion, it is a word with multiple meanings, both historical and in common usage. Here is a simple artice as to how I'm using the term: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul665.html

[Hot_Handz]

Originally Posted by jeffpv

It most definitely matters "why they were in that position" if one is going to argue that private businessmen are better-equipped to run an economy.

I do agree that the market, in general, should decide, as it would hopefully weed out those in big business who have no idea what they're doing. However, how is that going to happen when so many large businesses rely on tax breaks, bailouts, and subsidies to remain afloat?

There's only one way....get rid of the government. I realize that negating the state is not practical. And I am not a fan of Minarchism per se....but it would be way, wayyyyyy better than the level of Cronyism that we are under today.

If we had a total market economy (meaning laissez faire), then nearly every big business would relocate to China, India, or Sri Lanka.

The real issue is the consumer...Humans need to come to grips that the money they save at Walmart comes with a cost.

Which leads into monetary policy....but that's a whole 'nother digression.