Capitalism

Sure they are, although they have much greater levels of government interference via universal healthcare, broad welfare programs and generally higher taxes.

Depends on your definition of socialism. It's one of those words that means many things to many different people. If you're advocating workers control of the means of production and not Fabian socialism all you have to do is clear that up and say so then we're all on the same page. People get too worked up over words - we need to learn to speak in concepts instead

I mostly agree that the "Communist" revolution brought Russia into the modern world, but it obviously violated the rights of individuals in doing so.

Agreed on Stalinism's incompatibility with socialism, but authoritarianism has nothing to do with the right wing. There's no reason why you can't be liberal on social and economic issues.

The two party system is a dichotomy. The real choice is between libertarian socialism and classical liberalism. By the way, your avatar is freaky as D:

Usually true. Doesn't mean we can't get beyond that and have said economic discourse.

 

Simple provision of goods with public good trait.

The psychological evidence demonstrates that the authoritarian personality and right wing politics is heavily correlated. Not all right wingers are authoritarian types, but the probability that they are is substantially higher

 

But 'mom and pop investors' do not engage in market analysis. Since capitalism necessitates competing in an investment market for capital as well as a consumer market for profit, a narrow focus on short term return is necessary for firm survival. Given that, this leads to bad business models, disencouraging focus on long term stability, necessitating the state correcting for this in the form of subsidies and bailouts (refer to the recent "housing bubble" crisis). Does this not make resource wasting state capitalism the only possible model of capitalism that won't lead to eventual economic collapse?

But can worker owned firms function without the use of a mutual bank? As far as I'm aware, mutualism it's the only economic model that removes reliance on private investment and the associated inefficiencies and moral concerns.

 

"Right wing" has a different meaning in Europe than it does in the US. I wouldnt disagree with the statement above regarding European "right wing" politics.

 

The evidence is typically from the US, so that's just another red herring from you

 

I heard that the US left wing is politically to the right of European conservatives. I also heard that safety nets in Europe are much more local, in contrast to the US's federal system.

I don't know first hand about either, my trips to Europe were for business, no time to sight see.

 

Irrelevant to the thread, liberal democracy and anglo-saxon capitalism are still both capitalist and both suffer from the same sources of inefficiency

 

Nonsense. There is no such "evidence", merely theories proposed.

 

Again you only show that you're prepared to make statement without knowledge. The authoritarian personality is tested through psychological experiment

 

Nonsense. I suspect you are referring to Adorno's THEORIES. Psychological experiment after he proposed his theories only tended to disprove those theories.

 

Wrong! The authoritarian personality continues to be tested through experiment and continues to be shown to be relevant. Glad you at least googled this time though!

 

Still less inefficiency than every other economic system that has been implemented.

 

You're terribly backward-looking. Do you think mass unemployment is something to cheer?

 

I read "The Authoritarian Personality" in 1987 einstein

 

You've made too many errors to make that blag convincing dear chap!

 

And youve confirmed that I was correct in that you are referring to the silly theories of Adorno.

 

It beats even higher unemployment.

 

Actually its moved on from the original work by Adorno. Again you only show that you're typing blind; I did find the blag entertaining mind you!

 

Yeah, that would be the Psychological experimenting I referred to after his theories were proposed, discrediting those theories.

 

Again you show your innocence. Within market socialism, for example, we eliminate the need for involuntary unemployment. We're left with frictional unemployment (which would perhaps see a marginal increase as the reductions in inequality of opportunity will improve job search and reduce the incidents of employer-employee mismatches

Your googling has let you down again!

 

?? You do? When and where did we do that?

 

As usual, Netties define things the way the titans of mind control program their opinions, limiting debate to superficial concerns.
What passes for economics is discredited by its being a captive science, financed by and serving the ruling class. Even the hirelings who propose alternative economics are bound to fail because they too refuse to recognize that all economic machines are dependent on superior human resources. Systems are not important; only the development of superior creative minds should be focused. Only they can make a system work by providing the resources that are the key to activity. And they can make any system work.

The academic economic authorities myopically focus on administration and not on the raw human material that creates what business executives claim is all their own work. All the economic theories the professional experts offer you miss this point. They are obsessed with irrelevant details. I refuse to make the required references to a science that is no better than astrology.

 

There is no longer a profit role from unemployment; there's no need for a discipline device to ensure compliance

 

Interesting. Could you elaborate?

 

See the previous discussion about the shirking model and the efficiency wage hypothesis. Once you eliminate the divorce between ownership and work, you can improve incentives (perhaps partially accounting for the higher productivity levels found in worker ownership)