What interests me about people here who want to destroy the capitalist system

[cali]

completely and who see all capitalists as parasites on the flank of "the workers", is that they are often the people who excoriate gov't in the strongest way. How do you reconcile that hatred and lack of any confidence in gov't with placing complete power in gov't hands? And that's where it would be. Not in the peoples' hands, but in the hands of bureacrats.

I am a capitalist- with a small "c". I think small business is defensible. And that means I believe in private enterprise I support single-payer health care. I support strong regulation and don't believe that vital services should be in private hands. In other words, I believe in a mixed economy. But I don't believe that it should be easy for the gov't to seize private holdings. Not without a compelling reason and judicial oversight.

I don't see that the gov't is neccessarily the answer to everything.

[tabatha]

1. I think Thom Hartmann espouses the right mix.

He believes in business, has started and run more than one company successfully.

But, he understands the commons - that is the more socialist organizations that provide a safety net.

[Warpy]

5. I think that characterizes all thoughtful liberals

that realization that pure systems are for a pure human race, which we are certainly not.

Capitalism works very well to build wealth. I'm living on income from investment. I'm not living in the lap of luxury but I'm living well and would hate to see my income disappear in the name of dogmatic purity, no matter how good the social safety net gets. It also works well to deliver goods, ambitious people sniffing out needs and finding ways to fulfill them for profit.

Where it breaks down are the delivery of services and the inexorable progression toward monopoly, both of which we've seen over the last 40 years of conservatism from both parties. That's where socialism comes in, the use of government for the common good to prevent the excesses of the worst capitalists while insuring that the workers get a fair shake.

Only a mixed system can be both humane and competitive.

[the other one]

2. Small c capitalism is entrepeneurism

We want to keep that; it's corporatism that we can do without.

[October]

3. Agreed, but privatization without oversight has surely failed

We certainly have had compelling reasons.

[cali]

4. Didn't say we haven't had compelling reasons to regulate. Far from it.

I made it clear that I believe in strong regulation. But there are plenty here who belive in abolishing capitalism entirely. I don't.

[Jackpine Radical]

10. I don't see socialism as meaning no private companies.

I see it meaning no private monopolies or oligopolies. For example, I think it was a mistake to let regular savings banks get too big because that permits them to shift people's capital far away from where it does them any good. Suppose I'm a small retailer and put money in a savings account & my bank lends it to some retailer in, say, Bentonville, AR (to pick a purely random example). I would much rather have that money lent out locally to someone who might end up buying things from me.

Some things are clearly best done by private business, others best done by government. Competition really works sometimes. The problem is that capitalist systems invariably seem to evolve toward decadent monopoly systems. Part of the problem arises from buyouts and takeovers, and part from unfair competition, as when a giant decides to temporarily do price wars to kill off its smaller competition.

There are certain places where simple economic competition results in better products and services, and oother cases where the public good is not so well served by competing providers. For example, private fire departments probably wouldn't work too well. Sorry, we can't put that fire out; the owner isn't one of our customers. Or police forces. "I'm sorry, you'll have to report that mugging to your own police force. Our records don't show you as one of our subscribers."

Socialism would probably mean publicly owned utilities, energy companies, and vital services. It would probably also mean that a corporation has fewer "rights" than now. It would not mean the end of all private enterprise.

[The2ndWheel]

14. Every system ends up in a monopoly

The most efficient number is one.

[Warpy]

6. Privatization is THEFT, pure and simple

It steals from the public and gives to the corporate.

[H2O Man]

7. Interesting.

I'm not well-versed in economic issues. However, from my limited point of view, I agree with you. I'm not in favor of "vulture capitalism," and I do favor things like public schools. But in terms of small businesses and the like, I think capitalism and a relatively free market makes sense.

I'm not sure if having government run business is less prone to abuse than business running government. Again, I am admittedly lacking in a background on this subject. Growing up poor, and working like a dog in my adult life to maintain that status, I haven't learned much about economic issues. Certainly, I should have.

[Deep13]

8. Capitalism is a practice, not a belief system.

If you do not own the means of production, then you are not a capitalist.

FWIW, I'm not out to destroy capitalism, just to make sure it works for people and not against us.

[YOY]

9. I'm in dead agreement with you Cali.

Somethings are meant to be private. Others public. Private enterprise is a good things as a general whole.

Regulation is not something to be scoffed at.

[walkaway]

11. There are simply some areas that need to be run by the people and for the people.

Health, education, security should be rights and not sold to the highest bidder or used as pawns in greedy schemes for power or money. If the "banks" threaten the security of our country then they have to be controlled by the people for the greater good. What's the problem?

[cali]

12. uh, that's what I said in my OP

and no, I don't believe all the banks should be nationalized. Some of those that have been run into the ground and propped up with tax-payer money, perhaps, but that's hardly the same as advocating for wholesale nationalization. Greater regulation is, I believe, a much preferable solution.

[walkaway]

17. It seem to me that regulations are just an excuse to work around the rules

as soon as they are instated. Set the regulations to start in a year and the banks will abuse the lag time as much as possible to take as much of our tax dollars as possible.

Then, by the time the regulations kick in they have already found a way to get around them. It's been thirty years of this and it just won't work in a global econ omy.

[onehandle]

13. Our Soviet Masters will be very disappointed with you.

Comrade Chavez will be by shortly to collect your personal possessions.

[endarkenment]

15. The global capitalist financial system is quite simply destroying itself.

The question we are faced with is what is replacing it.

Hardly anyone here is advocating a classic marxist-leninist system that abolishes the market economy. In fact I'll go way out on a limb and state that your "people here who want to destroy the capitalist system" are in fact mostly made of straw.

[Kashka-Kat]

19. well put, I thought the O.P.'s subject line was referring to the unfettered capitalists & not

the commies - it seems to me that unfettered friedmanite capitalism at some point becomes simply pillaging and looting and is bascially a return to feudalism with control of wealth falling more along hereditary lines.

[Kashka-Kat]

16. Who wants to "destroy capitalism" ? Im not clear who you are referring to - havent seen any avowed

Communists around here - not saying there arent, just I havent seen them. Actually communism is a lot like capitalism in that there are an infinite variety and cultural flavors - doesn't necessarily have to be dreary, totalitarian, miserable, although they've usually turned out that way in practice.

I can say that I honestly would, in my fondest dreams, prefer some sort of communal, collectivist, decentralized economic system. However, being 50 something and having tried housing co-ops and the like in my youth, Ive become more realistic - aint' gonna happen, except maybe in some small scale/regional ways. (If economy really tanks alt economies could take off, similar to houw alt currencies and the like had more wide use in the 1930s)

In the meantime some sort of modified capitalism works for me - our country has for the past 100+ years used socialistic elements to soften the harsh edges of capitalism. Public schools, mail, nationalized military, social security, food safety - all socialist AND as American as apple pie.

I would like to see us reclaim the word "socialist" from the demonizers.

[cali]

18. There was a long thread yesterday

all about capitalists being parasites. And quite a few posters made it quite clear that they included small business people as an evil, going so far as to claim that all those involved in private enterprise were the equivalent of slave holders.

[CANDO]

20. I like Michael Parenti's viewpoint.

Capitalism doesn't give us a decent, middle class living. On the contrary, it is the democratic struggle against capitalism which ensures us our fair share. The 40 hr workweek, vacations, pensions, labor and safety laws, etc. These are all brought about by government meddling in the almighty free market. We do so because we want a fair and just economy so we all can at least put a roof over our heads and food in our bellies.