[Proculation]

Lemmy wrote:

I think you're confused about the term "government intervention". What we would take it to mean today is quite a differnt thing than what it meant in 1860. Most government intervention in the 19th century was garnered on the payment of bribe. It would better be termed a business expense than government intervention.

But this thread isn't about the rise of monopolies in the railroad industry, so interested though I am in discussing it, I'll stand down.

No problem with the stand down.

[Praxius]

DanSC wrote:

I wouldn't say the NDP's values have been embraced by the mainstream. Capitalism and economic competition still exist, and the economy is not planned by the government.

You can have Democracy & Capitalism right along with Solcialism. Both Canada, the US and many other countries do this quite well.

And before you try to counter that, keep in mind that both nation's Police Forces, Fire Departments, Schools, Military, Roads, and other aspects of our societies are funded and run using Socialist systems. The only difference between the two nations that stands out the most is medical coverage.

I support Socialism in many aspects, but would not support it being in every aspect of our lives and government, just as I wouldn't want our countries to be run completely using Capitalism alone..... otherwise police would only protect you if you directly paid them to on a case by case basis, our troops would be mercinaries protecting the highest bidder, firemen wouldn't put your house out unless you wrote them a cheque first, etc.

Without these socialist systems, our Capitalist-Democracies we take for granted everyday would have fallen apart long ago.

Added:

No one political system is perfect, nor should one political system be allowed to run by itself, otherwise the worst aspects of that system will be exploited.

If one type of system was truly perfect, we'd all be living under that system right now. Instead, we use aspects of many types of systems in order to keep some kind of balance and some sort of restraint on the other so that the worst aspects of those systems can't be exploited as much.

The NDP (New Democrat Party) based their party on Socialist methods, but they're not a 100% socialist party, planning on turning the entire country into a 100% socialist government..... otherwise I wouldn't support them, because that's nuts.

But the Liberal and Conservative parties have fear mongered over the NDP using Socialism in their platform so much, that the reality of the party has been skewed beyond belief..... and it seems that only recently have the piblic been using their own brains to determine themselves what each party is about.

[ShepherdsDog]

Every society throughout history has had social entities/constructs. If you want to call them Socialist systems, then you may as well call human civilization a socialist system.

[Teikiatsu]

Thanos wrote:

It wouldn't be the first or last time that the behaviours didn't match the label that's been given to them.

That normally happens when the person who doesn't understand the behavior starts handing out the labels.

[Praxius]

I'd also like to point out another example of Socialism saving the ass of Capitalism.... which would be the latest global recession that occurred. It occurred because a number of big businesses decided to screw around with their dealings without oversight, for the main goal of maximizing their profits regardless of the consequences.

They then started going bankrupt and crying about their businesses going tits up and many of their employees losing their jobs..... and what happened?

Rather then letting these businesses die from their own stupid actions, our governments bailed them out by using our tax money to keep them going..... ie: socialism saved their asses.

And while some companies have paid that money back, keep in mind that many of the people responsible for the recession kept their jobs and in fact, got raises, bonuses and fancy trips to resorts for their troubles.

Now again, I do believe and support a level of Capitalism in our societies, but the above is what happens when you let it run wild and do whatever they damn well please. People seem to think the honor system will work just fine with many businesses if they're left free to do as they please..... but clearly that didn't work and Socialist methods were required to save their ass..... Society and their Tax money had to bail them out from their own stupid actions.

But thems the breaks I suppose.

[Teikiatsu]

ShepherdsDog wrote:

Every society throughout history has had social entities/constructs. If you want to call them Socialist systems, then you may as well call human civilization a socialist system.

Smaller communities working together for common goals is one thing, it's quite another when the ruling government begins taking property from specfic parts of society to redistribute to another for 'the greater good.' After that it just becomes a matter how far they can push the people they take from, which tends to become a larger and larger section of the society until the entire system collapses.

[Teikiatsu]

Praxius wrote:

I'd also like to point out another example of Socialism saving the ass of Capitalism.... which would be the latest global recession that occurred. It occurred because a number of big businesses decided to screw around with their dealings without oversight, for the main goal of maximizing their profits regardless of the consequences.

They then started going bankrupt and crying about their businesses going tits up and many of their employees losing their jobs..... and what happened?

Rather then letting these businesses die from their own stupid actions, our governments bailed them out by using our tax money to keep them going..... ie: socialism saved their asses.

And while some companies have paid that money back, keep in mind that many of the people responsible for the recession kept their jobs and in fact, got raises, bonuses and fancy trips to resorts for their troubles.

Now again, I do believe and support a level of Capitalism in our societies, but the above is what happens when you let it run wild and do whatever they damn well please. People seem to think the honor system will work just fine with many businesses if they're left free to do as they please..... but clearly that didn't work and Socialist methods were required to save their ass..... Society and their Tax money had to bail them out from their own stupid actions.

But thems the breaks I suppose.

All that sounds great, but you missed the part where it wasn't Capitalism that Socialism bailed out. It was a mix of government (yes government) intervention, corporatism, lobbyist, and corruption. America hasn't seen true Capitalism in at least 50 years.

[Praxius]

Teikiatsu wrote:

ShepherdsDog wrote:

Every society throughout history has had social entities/constructs. If you want to call them Socialist systems, then you may as well call human civilization a socialist system.

Smaller communities working together for common goals is one thing, it's quite another when the ruling government begins taking property from specfic parts of society to redistribute to another for 'the greater good.' After that it just becomes a matter how far they can push the people they take from, which tends to become a larger and larger section of the society until the entire system collapses.

You make it sound like those same people they're "Taking" from wouldn't have it come back to them in other means of support or there wouldn't be some level of benefit to them.... as if they'd be excluded from it all and thus, not a part of that society other then some cow to milk.

If that's the way it was, then yes, I wouldn't support it either.

[Proculation]

I refer the new posters at my previous post about the words and what they mean.

[Psudo]

Lemmy wrote:

I'm just saying that the existence of competition isn't the defining feature of capitalism. We can't say "there's competition, therefore it isn't a socialist system".

Praxius wrote:

You can have Democracy & Capitalism right along with Solcialism.

These both depend on whether you mean a generally socialist system or a few social programs in an otherwise capitalist system. No single economic point can be both centrally planned and left to individuals to decide for themselves. Of course every system is a mix of central planning and self-direction, but competition is a trait of decentralization. There's no competitive alternative to 911 emergency response, for example.

Lemmy wrote:

On its own, however, capitalism will tend to accumulate wealth in the hands of the few and, therefore, trusts will emerge and competition will disappear.

This is true of a purists' breed of absolute deregulation. Very few capitalists are such extreme purists, and those wrong few still believe that perfect deregulation is better at preventing harmful behavior than regulation. No modern form of capitalism intends to develop monopolies or hurt society.

Praxius wrote:

I'd also like to point out another example of Socialism saving the ass of Capitalism.... which would be the latest global recession that occurred.

Less central planning in some areas would have done as much to prevent the global financial crisis as more central planning in others. Inasmuch as government is responsible, incompetent compromise is to blame.

[bootlegga]

Proculation wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

There are many ways that monopolies can be created. Yes, they can come from government license, but they occured more frequently in 18th and 19th century America as a result of successful companies eliminating their competition through predatory practises. In that sense, laissez-faire systems are just as likely to generate monopolies.

Which ones ? Since late 18th and 19th centuries in the US were the most close we experienced real capitalism, what companies becomes monopolies barring entry on the market ?

Read up on Standard Oil (John Rockefeller) for a prime example of predatory business practices.