Capitalism and Socialism had been working togeather for decades...

It dawned on me, an affirmed capitalist, that we've had successful social programs which have worked well in this capitalist based economy for a very long time.

Our basic education system through high-school, our highways, emergency people. All are based on "socialist" like philosophy.

These have largely been paid for by the whole group whether or not those services were used by everyone or not.

Sure, there's been some complaints by property owners paying school levees when they had no kids, but by and large, these crosses were borne without complaint.

Pride in the local school's athletic programs-still strong in the smaller communities- was the order of the day.

In a lot of ways, a good era for most.

All financed by a large private sector employee base with a very small public sector that was largely underpaid by private sector standards.

Capitalism, with a small, non-toxic dose of socialism, working in an apparent harmony-or at the least, a long-lasting cease-fire- a workable, if imperfect system.

So where did it all go wrong?

The greed of the capitalists? The greed of the public-sector employees and unions? Both?

That's question that remains unanswered, but, perhaps the question should really be, how do we get a balance back between the two, with both sides operating, at least to some degree, based on the greater good.

The point, I think, is I don't want to live in an environment where if my debit card is overdrawn, the private fire department won't put out the fire in my house.

On the other hand, I don't want a gov't employee telling me what I can eat or smoke because the "public" is paying for my health care.

Is there a balance out there that no one is even thinking about, never mind trying to achieve?

Is that balance the only real "out"? The alternative being a left or right wing fascism where neither will achieve what we already had?

Is "going back" possible? Or even desirable?

Balance is subjective.

What you consider balanced may not be the same opinion someone else has. I'm sure there are many people that feel we are balanced right now.

The question you ask is impossible to ever achieve unless every single person believed the way you do.

They don't.

reply to post by Hopechest


Hmm, "there are many people who think we are balanced right now".??

Really? I sure would like to meet one, never mind many.

As far as balanced goes, your right, it's subjective. So let me clarify that.

A mix which isn't breaking the nation financially, the individuals in that nation and we maintain a lifestyle that has the majority fairly content with and a legitimate hope for the future for their children.

Gawd, we're not even close.LOL

reply to post by Hopechest


They didn't think alike back then either, yet it apparently worked....

People often view history with rose colored glasses.

These era's that you consider balanced were anything but balanced and just as out of whack as they are today.

You didn't mention a specific era but I assume you were talking about the 50's...correct me if I'm wrong.

The policies of that era would never work today, they were extremely assbackwards. I like to think we've progressed as a society from that era and although we've now gained a new set of problems, they are less direct than the ones that group of people faced.

As for your question of balance you could have a pure socialistic ideology that is balanced, a capitalist one that is balanced, or a combination of both of them. It is not the ideology that creates balance, it is the effectiveness of those governing in a system that creates balance.

If you have idiots running your society they will screw up whatever system you put in place.

Most countries have aspects of all political denominations represented in their nations way of doing things. They just don't like to admit it.
Most politicians speak of ideologies, but there has rarely ever been a system that wasn't a mixture of several different.
There is a logic in sharing the burden, when it comes to stuff like education, roads etc. since these are things we all need. This usually saves resources, and makes for a much more balanced and hence stable society.

Originally posted by nwtrucker
It dawned on me, an affirmed capitalist, that we've had successful social programs which have worked well in this capitalist based economy for a very long time.

Socialism is not social programs. That is liberalism. Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. Liberalism is capitalism with a state social safety-net.

Are you really a capitalist? You own private economic property, and you make your living from the hiring of labour? If not you are just a worker mate.

Our basic education system through high-school, our highways, emergency people. All are based on "socialist" like philosophy.

No they're not. If they were owned and ran by the workers they would be socialist. Government ran is not socialism, it's nationalisation. Government owned is ran on capitalist principles of central authority.

reply to post by Hopechest


OK, give me an example of bassackwards that you refer to. I guess the 50's might qualify although age and experience wise thinking in the sixties.

I agree re the people running the show, but again, it's been said we get the gov't we deserve.LOL.

To simplify even more, balanced may be too subjective. Lets say workable from the framework of having been applied successfully in the past rather than a theoretical piece by some author who makes his money from the publication rather than a "job".

Again, the old system mix was workable. That, I believe cannot be argued with any logic. Imperfect, yes, but workable.

I really don't think there is many who believe the current situation is workable in the long run.

Is there a balance out there that no one is even thinking about, never mind trying to achieve?

a small insight here > www.abovetopsecret.com...

try to get hold of a 5 part series of mp3 recordings called "proofs of conspiracy" by Stuart Crane. specifically parts 1 and 2, i think you'll find the whole series interesting. (and i think these recordings were made in the 60's?) ..it's hard to find but worth it (should be around 38.5 megabytes to download)

keep on truckin'

Originally posted by Mads1987
Most countries have aspects of all political denominations represented in their nations way of doing things. They just don't like to admit it.

Neither socialism, nor capitalism, are political systems, they are economic systems.

The US for example does not have a capitalist government, they have a capitalist economy, much like the rest of the world.

If a country has a government calling itself socialist, it doesn't make the country socialist. Only worker ownership can make a nation socialist.

reply to post by ANOK


I disagree with your definition of liberalism. I don't think it requires any kind of safety net.
I think what the OP is describing is a lite version of Democratic_socialism.

Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by Hopechest

 

OK, give me an example of bassackwards that you refer to. I guess the 50's might qualify although age and experience wise thinking in the sixties.

I agree re the people running the show, but again, it's been said we get the gov't we deserve.LOL.

To simplify even more, balanced may be too subjective. Lets say workable from the framework of having been applied successfully in the past rather than a theoretical piece by some author who makes his money from the publication rather than a "job".

Again, the old system mix was workable. That, I believe cannot be argued with any logic. Imperfect, yes, but workable.

I really don't think there is many who believe the current situation is workable in the long run.

Women and minorities were pretty much kept out of the mainstream workforce.

At least the kind of jobs that further society along. Is this an ideal that you would want to return to?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Mads1987
Most countries have aspects of all political denominations represented in their nations way of doing things. They just don't like to admit it.

Neither socialism, nor capitalism, are political systems, they are economic systems.

The US for example does not have a capitalist government, they have a capitalist economy, much like the rest of the world.

If a country has a government calling itself socialist, it doesn't make the country socialist. Only worker ownership can make a nation socialist.

Sorry, what?

Really don't know how you got that out of what I wrote. I never said the US had a capitalist government. I was making the exact same point as you. Your economy is capitalist, your welfare system is liberal, your social policies are conservative as is your cultural policies, your foreign policies I'm not gonna comment on, cause you won't like it. But yeah.. it's a mixture of many different things.

Many parties support socialistic initiatives without being socialist (or at least without admitting it). The same goes for conservative, capitalist and other policies.
I know their not systems. Democracy is a system. But the policies made within that democracy usually consists of a bunch of different ideologies.

reply to post by ANOK


Hmm, yet on the other hand, anyone with a retirement plan, 401K, and investment in the marketplace, even property has a vested interest in the capitalist system. But, yes, I'm only an employee right now but have had employees in the past. mostly in the trucking industry. Nothing big, mind you, still, the mechanism is the same.

I really hadn't considered supporting a safety net a "liberal" concept. More a human one.

The only cubby-hole that might fit someone who wouldn't support some sort of "net" would, off the top, be a Libertarian or even an anarchist. LOL.

Originally posted by Mads1987
I disagree with your definition of liberalism. I don't think it requires any kind of safety net.
I think what the OP is describing is a lite version of Democratic_socialism.

The definition of economic liberalism is support of a social safety-net. It got it's start in the 1800's when the upper classes decided it would be better for them to provide a social safety net to keep the workers from revolting.

If you don't support a social safety net you are not an economic liberal.

If you look at the Democratic nominees for president since 1932, those that have won have done so by stressing economic liberalism. "Economic liberalism" uses the power of the government to expand economic opportunities for all Americans, but especially for working class Americans, or by increasing the social safety net.

Economic Liberalism and Social Liberalism

reply to post by ANOK


I question whether socialism is an economic system in that it is fully dependent on capitalism to fund that redistribution. It's just capitalism with a big modifier tacked on the ass end of it.

Heck, Socialism can't exist without it.

reply to post by ANOK


Fair enough.

reply to post by Hopechest


There's some smart ladies out there and having both a daughter and a granddaughter, then the short answer is it depends.

My full answer is you don't condemn a whole system due to flaws, you fix them.

So yes, I'd go back to the "old system" . I'd rather have the opportunities for my girls, but, I'd have less fear for their future survival, literally, than they face today!

Originally posted by nwtrucker
I really hadn't considered supporting a safety net a "liberal" concept. More a human one.

But that is what it means to be a liberal.

The only cubby-hole that might fit someone who wouldn't support some sort of "net" would, off the top, be a Libertarian or even an anarchist. LOL.

Hmm if you are talking about American "libertarianism" then yes. But American libertarianism is not libertarian at all but authoritarian. Libertarian was a term used by 18th century anarchists, see my sig.

But having said that, in a roundabout way you are correct. Anarchists ultimately do not support the social safety net because socialism doesn't require one, and yes anarchists are socialists (everywhere but America where black is white, up is down, and capitalism is freedom, what George warned us about in 1984).

See, back before politics was used to simply divide people into two predictable groups, liberal and conservative were not political opposites. Liberals originally came from the right, the establishment, not the left wing workers labour movement. The workers wanted ownership, not handouts. WWII pretty much ended any serious threat to the system by the labour movement, and socialism was replaced with liberalism. Capitalism reduced the threat to it's existence by decimating the working class with war, and heavy social conditioning post WWII. Helped by the introduction of the TV.

Originally posted by nwtrucker
I question whether socialism is an economic system in that it is fully dependent on capitalism to fund that redistribution. It's just capitalism with a big modifier tacked on the ass end of it.

Heck, Socialism can't exist without it.

Hmm that is not true. Nothing has to fund any redistribution, you are just confused by it's meaning.

Socialism redistributes wealth only because the workers earn the full fruits of their labour. Nothing is taken from anybody other than the monopoly on the means of production used to exploit labour.

Capitalism makes profit by not paying workers for all they produce. The worker has to produce "surplus value" in order for the capitalist to make their profit. Socialism simply removes the private owner, and workers own and control their own production, so they earn the full fruits of their labour.

You can't have both private and worker ownership, it's either one or the other.

To see sort of how this can work, and proof it does work, is the Spanish Revolution where the mostly CNT anarchists helped workers organise and run their own work places. They did this for 2 years, while a war was going on with fascist Franco with help from Mussolini and Hitler, the real start of WWII. They increased production, wages, conditions, infrastructure. They did more in those two years than had been done in decades before the government dissolved. It's not a pipe dream, it could and was nearly a reality, if not for WWII the revolution would have spread across Europe and the world.

Anarchism played a huge part in socialism, but it's history has gone mostly untold.

Only Anarchism with its concept 'of socialism based on individual freedom and the power of workers' councils stands apart from all this. That is why, despite four decades of repression, the CNT reappeared as a real union after the death of Franco. That is why a group of Irish workers seeking a genuine socialism formed the Workers Solidarity Movement in 1984. We believe that Anarchism is not just another choice for those who want a better world, the history of all other `left' movements shows that Anarchism is a necessity.

The Spanish Civil War: Anarchism in Action

The Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT; "National Confederation of Labour") is a Spanish confederation of anarcho-syndicalist labour unions affiliated with the International Workers Association (IWA; Spanish: AIT – Asociación Internacional de los Trabajadores). When working with the latter group it is also known as CNT-AIT. Historically, the CNT has also been affiliated with the Federación Anarquista Ibérica (Iberian Anarchist Federation – FAI). In this capacity it was referred to as the CNT-FAI. Throughout its history, it has played a major role in the Spanish labor movement.

Confederación Nacional del Trabajo

Both Marx and Bakunin (anarcho-syndicalist) were members of the IWA, but were in opposition as to how socialism should be realised. Marx wanted the political path, and Bakunin wanted the direct action path to socialism, which is what made socialists anarchists.