> > Capitalism is not "making a buck at any cost." Capitalism is doing one's best to bring to fruit the greatest personal, and thereby total, gain possible.

> > gab"didn't proofread = weird writing"by

> That is all well and good, but like Marx's Maneffesto [or "Manifesto", even] it lacks in one importnat detail. It assumes peopel on a whole are smart, reasonable, not selfish, and can see the big picture.

We're not really talking about the education system here anymore, Speedball, but fine, whatever.

You are quite correct in saying that /pure/ capitalism can be dangerous. It leads to monopolies that are harmful to consumers, and sweatshops or child labor that are harmful to workers. It does lead to anarchy because the definition of pure capitalism, at least in part, is, no government intervention in business. So at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain, there were no government controls on what businesses could do (because the businesses were essentially a new concept and the beurocracy was slow to adjust). It was indeed anarchy -- and it was also pure capitalism.

So, you know and I know and I think Gabby knows that /pure/ capitalism is a bad thing. Your government also knows this. That's why you /don't have/ pure capitalism in the United States. You have another form of capitalism, called a "mixed economy". It is very nearly pure capitalism compared to the economic systems in many other nations -- but it is /not/ pure capitalism, and there /is/ government intervention to prevent such things as monopolies and sweatshops. Your country realized that such intervention was necessary ever since John D. Rockefeller, if I remember my history correctly, formed an oil monopoly and started charging outrageous prices for oil; and it continues to regulate businesses with such actions as the current anti-trust trials against Microsoft. (Don't bother saying that sweatshops still /exist/ -- they /don't/ exist in /America/, at least not legally, and that's what we're talking about right now.)

My question is, so what? Pure capitalism doesn't exist in America. Everybody knows it's bad. So why are we talking about it?

When Gabby says that Capitalism "is doing one's best to bring to fruit the greatest personal, and thereby total, gain possible", I don't think he's referring to /pure/ capitalism, because pure capitalism doesn't exist in America. I think what he's talking about is the form of capitalism that /does/ exist in America -- a mixed economy, where the government does intervene somewhat in order to ensure fairness and opportunity.

You say that Gabby's argument "assumes peopel [sic] on a whole are smart, reasonable, not selfish, and can see the big picture." Indeed, in the United States, it is the /government/ that is entrusted with being smart, reasonable, unselfish, and able to see the big picture. And when a corporation acts against the best interests of the people, then it is the responsibility of the government to step in and protect the people's interests. It doesn't work all the time, but it works /most/ of the time and it is in general the most successful and equitable economic system anyone has ever come up with on this planet.

Private schools, as they exist right now in America, do not exist in a pure capitalist economy. There are government controls to ensure that a certain standard of education is being taught at all private schools. There are also controls to ensure that the teachers are given fair wages and not made to work 98 hours a week (that's seven fourteen-hour days, if you're wondering where the number came from -- but of course, all I mean is that teachers are given reasonable hours).

I am of the opinion that dismantling the public education system and allowing private schools to take over the education of a nation's children is a /bad/ idea. I have said as much in quite a number of posts, and at some length. But arguing that the private schools should not be depended upon because "capitalism is bad" and talking about "sweatshops" and "monopolies" is ridiculous and cheapens the whole argument. In general, as it stands in America, capitalism is a /positive/ force that gives consumers /better/ products. Private schools, in competition with each other, would probably result in the creation of some very good schools. They probably do already. But that isn't the reason we need to keep a public education system. We need to keep a public education system because of a /responsibility/ that we have, and because of a /right/ that American citizens should be given, and because even without competition, the beurocracy could /also/, if they felt like it, create an excellent education system -- and they must be given the chance to do so. Read my post "Re: Public Schools" for more on this.

> Unfettered Communism and Socialism are just a dangerous mind you. Either direction leads to opression, but a balance must be found, Controlled Capitalism.

I /think/ "controlled capitalism" and "mixed economy" mean the same thing -- but the point is, we already /have/ one!

And, even though it's way off topic, I suppose I might as well talk a little bit about communism and socialism. One thing we need to understand is that they're not two different things -- communism is just a very extreme form of socialism.

Here's what socialism means: it means that the government protects the interests of all of its citizens by redistributing wealth and ensuring that all of its people are guaranteed a certain basic standard of living. In fact, it's a type of mixed economy, just like in the United States. But the United States has a type of mixed economy that's closer to pure capitalism, while a socialist economy has much more government intervention. Sweden, for example, had a socialist economy over the last few decades (it's becoming more capitalist rather than socialist now; more like the United States). The government guaranteed, for example, that every citizen would have a job. Taxes in Sweden were much higher, but the government spent the money from the taxes to guarantee some rights for all of its citizens. There was still a capitalist-based private sector, and competition, just as in the United States; but the government intervened somewhat more to give direction to its businesses and to make sure that the competition was fair. The result was that during its years of socialism, Sweden had the highest standard of life (and one of the longest life expectancies) anywhere on the planet.

Socialism, therefore, just means that the government intervenes in the economy a lot. It's a workable system, and it worked in Sweden for a long time. (Recently they've had some sort of a financial crisis and the government had to cut back on programs such as the job creation program -- but this crisis is likely unrelated to the fact that they had a socialist economy).

I am not a proponent of socialism -- but to say that it is an unworkable system is to make an erroneous statement. (Keep in mind that Sweden had what many considered to be a /pure/ socialist economy.)

Communism, however, is not separate from socialism. Rather, it is a special /type/ of /extreme/ socialism in which the government guarantees that /everybody/ has the /same/ standard of living. (At least, that's what it is from an economic standpoint; communism, unlike socialism, also has political connotations.) It is /not/ "pure socialism", just "extreme socialism". And you're right at least in this respect; as far as we can tell, it doesn't work.

> Well, now that I said that can just agree to dissagree, I don't want this to degereate into a flame war. I've said my peice.
>
> Speed'Liberal and Proud of it'ball

-Spacebar