aCongratulations, you've discovered the system that's in place in every developed country in the world. Give yourself a cookie.

The question isn't whether or not they should be balanced, but how the balance should go.

Where do you stand on that question, sirrah? How should the scales be tipped, with more or less government control over the unstable market?

why are hitler and mussolini on the capitalist side

Nazi was short for National SOCIALIST German Workers Party what the fuck

I'm logic and reason and I'm in this thread.

>>2141429
Yeah, and we saw how truly socialist they were, didn't we?

>>2141429
Nationalists are anti-capitalism and anit-socialism. If capitalism was for the individual, and socialism was for the people as a whole, nationalism was for the state.

>>2141405

Total control and total freedom both inevitably lead to chaos.

We need a system that lets you become as rich as you want, but without increasing the amount of poor people.

Do you agree with Social Darwinism?
If Yes, take the Capitalism exit.
If No, please use the Socialism exit.

>>2141429

Socialist in name only. Hitler was more of a capitalist

>>2141429

Nazis were corporatist/statist. Not capitalist. Capitalistic societies with an exception toward allowance of monopolies tend to create cantankerously individualistic societies. Think of the perpetually angry New Englanders during the Revolutionary War.

Wait, why do you have thinkers supporting True Anarchy but not True Totalitarianism (or is that Tyranny?)? What about True Capitalism and True Socialism? NEEDS MOAR DND!

>>2141379
By mitigating disparities between the rich and poor, socialism removes the incentives that lead to entrepreneurship. Additionally, because a socialist society can't determine the correct values of capital goods, it can't possibly be as efficient as a capitalist society.

>>2141464
You didn't answer the question.

I agreed with the need for balance. The question was how we should balance it: should we have more or less regulation, more or less governmental program support for people with whatever issue? We assume that there's a balance of capitalism and socialism to be successful, but how are the scales tipped?

>>2141489
True Capitalism, the Rich rules with an iron fist, no class fluidity.
True Socialism, you don't have to do shit and live off hand outs.

Both Suck but True Socialism is far worst.

Arguing for a balance between capitalism and socialism is like arguing for a balance between health and sickness.

>>2141490
Profit and social welfare should go hand in hand. A Health, prosperous and hardworking society benefits everybody.

Industry is necessary for the labor
Labor is necessary for the industry

They cannot survive without each other

>>2141521
Your face is an argument between health and sickness.

Because you've got acne something FIERCE.

>>2141440
pretty damn socialist learn some history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Anti-capitalist_rhetoric

>>2141530
Exploiting the rich is just as bad as exploiting the poor.

>>2141490
That's one of the reasons I started this thread. Hopefully the intellectuals on r9k can help me assess the pros and cons of both ideologies and we can determine the right type of balance.

And the 10 year old boy learned about moderation

>2141530
THIS. HOLY SHIT MOTHERFUCKING THIS.

>>2141470
Hitler was more of a capitalist? Then why did he say this:

We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.

>>2141466
Incorrect. Social Darwinism is not possible without government intervention. Social Darwinism dictates that monopolies can occur naturally in a purely supply and demand economy. According to pure Capitalism, if a monopoly occurs, one of two things happen; the company's absolute power corrupts absolutely and begins to run their business like they're the kings of whatever they do. This does not please the consumer and an additional company in that industry arises. OR another company joins into the industry just because they could probably bump the prices down a notch.

>>2141590
Hitler also said that he had no further territorial ambitions in Europe. Then he invaded Poland.

>>2141590

DUFFMAN SAYS A LOT OF THINGS

OH YEAH

ITT: people who think socialism directly conflicts with capitalism

>>2141642
ITT people who think that a system requiring the public ownership of capital goods directly conflicts with a system requiring the private ownership of capital goods. Also cocks.

>>2141379

Duh.

This "insight" has been well-known for hundreds of years.

Pure Capitalism CAN'T exist anyway. It's a theoretical construct.

Everyone with a basic education understands this.

>>2141621
and their whole platform was a lie and they never tried to implement it, right?
http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/ASLevel_History/25pointnsdapprogramme.htm

>>2141379
Hello, this is the Han Dynasty. I heard you talking about synthesizing political ideologies or something.

>Capitalism and Socialism should be balanced in a society.
Mixed economies sure are doing great now, aren't they?

>>2141710

Corrections are necessary.

Was it a tragedy when the factories that made VCRs and 8-tracks closed?

>>2141685
Will you be changing your name to MixedideologiesBastard then? :D

Anarchism is the solution to OP's question.

Government has a habit of either producing a socialist system that can only produce the mediocre goods or denying worker's basic rights and being controlled by the wealthy when it favors capitalism. In an anarchist world you could have Capitalism and Communism side by side because neither would be trying to gain control of a government. Workers could either work at democratic businesses controlled by workers or at a privately-owned business at their own decision. Business owners could no longer become too powerful by using the government as a weapon to enforce their interests and would be forced to rely on themselves instead of government handouts (see: the 700 billlion dollar bailout).

>>2141735

There is no mix. Mixed economies are basically Capitalist in nature.

The "mixed part" is simply the portion of the productive capacity of the market siphoned off by the state for the purpose of social stability.

I want the goverment to strive for more capatalism as communications and worker education improve.

>>2141597
Why did you go from Social Darwinism to a definition of monopoly?

You're wrong.
Capitalism advocates a free market, with no government interference, the rich will get richer, the poor will stay poor and work for the rich.
Social Darwinism has a greater chance of occuring if there were no governmental supervision.

>>2141804
The rich will get richer until someone starts a competing company or their business expands to such an extent that they fall prey to the economic calculation problem. Either way the INVISIBLE HAND OF THE MARKET will automatically solve the problem.

>>2141733
>>2141774
>>2141685

Ugh... this is me.

I accidentally used a tripcode that I used on another chan months ago.

>>2141765
Anarchism would also imply a lack of regulation and law. No quality control and no consensus on standards. Conflict would be rampant and propaganda/marketing would replace quality and efficiency.
It wouldn't help at all.

>>2141879
Entities such as Consumer Reports would emerge to provide consumers with unbiased information about product quality, also dangerously unsafe products would quickly gain a reputation for being so and would result in boycotts against the company involved.

>>2141855
I agree but you have to consider this; who's going to start the rival company? The rich with ample capital or the poor working at the lowest wage possible because his boss wants to stay extremely competitive in the market?
The difference in living standards isn't going to be solve, the chasm between the rich and the poor will only grow bigger over time.

all developed nations are capitalist.

But, using (what i am guessing) what you mean by Capitalism, i'd say the most efficient system is Capitalist in production, and moderately socialist in distribution. Which makes sense, because socialism is just a set of theories on distribution of wealth, while "capitalism" is a set of theories about production of wealth.

>>2141804
The two connect if you observed the late 19th century. Monopolies like Standard Oil ruled supreme and existed and continued to exist because Social Darwinism was being practiced. The monopolies were getting away with negligence towards laborers and the government was turning a blind eye and/or contributing to the fraud that was being committed by the various big companies of the time. This economic participation from the government did not fit within the confines of true Capitalism. Capitalism in combination with blind justice towards all classes encourages a larger middle class and a less extreme lower and upper class.
Social Darwinism is more every man for himself and if you see a monopoly, don't worry, it's perfectly natural.

>>2141935
and most poor nations are capitalist too. that doesn't means it is or isn't capitalism's fault.

>>2141908
Bullshit, they'd be wholly-owned subsidiaries of the companies they purported to inspect

We're already dealing with this sort of corruption in a somewhat heavily regulated economy -- it would be unimaginably worse if there was higher enforcement authority

If you want to know what a lack of good regulation looks like in a complex, modern capitalist economy check out China, where babies die from fake formula and poisonous chemicals are used in everything from food to toys in order to cut costs

>>2142004
>it would be unimaginably worse if there was higher enforcement authority

If there WASN'T a higher authority

Really fucked that sentence up.

>>2141551

I wouldn't say so. If the poor lose money, they die.
If the rich lose money, they're just a little less rich.

>>2142004
And if the Chinese government wasn't so corrupt, the companies responsible for that sort of thing would have been litigated into smoking craters by the affected parties.

>>2142004

China is nowhere close to a free market economy. It's economy is a crony-capitalist system where the government doesn't even enforce its own laws.

>>2142032

>>If the poor lose money, they die.

Are you sure about that?

>>2142004
It would be in their economic best interest to provide accurate, unbiased reviews, because if they didn't some other group would swoop in and rape their profits by making a point of being accurate and unbiased.

>>2142040
You don't get it -- some of the people responsible for that shit were actually executed once it was discovered what they'd done. The Chinese government didn't condone it. The point is that it should not happen in the first place, which necessitates regulation.

>>2142071

Pretty much. If not from poor health, then from mental disorders brought on by stress, or from crime.

>>2142082
Okay, so people commit crimes and then the government punishes them for it. I see nothing wrong with that that would neccessitate creating agencies responsible for constantly making sure that people aren't committing crimes.

>>2142074
No it wouldn't, it would be in their interest to increase the profits of the company they shill for.

Stop being so naive, this happens constantly all around the world. Can you even name a publication you think is genuinely unbiased? Shit paid for by advertising is not independent.

>>2142032
If you exploit the rich they have less money to properly maintain a business and we lose goods and services.

>>2142103
Right, so you're OK with thousands of people being poisoned as long as someone goes to jail eventually.

You're an idiot.

>>2142063
The government doesn't enforce its own laws, creating a relatively lawless economy by Western standards. That's exactly what I'm talking about. No laws, no regulation = a shithole where you can't prevent people from being poisoned, you can only punish someone after the fact.

>>2142082

>>The Chinese government didn't condone it.

Only when it's found out.

>>2142096

Contrary to social Darwinism, being broke doesn't automatic make people maniacs. Unless they're some uneducated ghetto trash, there's no reason for them not to dust themselves off and start again.

>>2142129
I'm also okay with thousands of people being shot as long as the people responsible for doing so are held responsible for it. That's how the criminal justice system works. Government regulation is basically a police state for corporations.

>>2142118
Perhaps with small businesses, but most of the rich don't fund their operations out of their own pockets. I'm not saying exploitation is good on either side, but there should be some bias for the poor.

>>2142136
Better than punishing someone before the fact.

>>2142157
Why should there be a bias for the poor? Poverty is no badge of virtue; it just means that someone is too lazy or stupid to act in a way that makes them not poor.

>>2142160
Inspecting to ensure compliance with regulation is not punishment

>>2142137
>Only when it's found out.
And without regulation that necessitates inspection, it's extraordinarily difficult to find out.

>>2142205
So you'd have no problem with government agents randomly inspecting your house, car, &c to make sure you were abiding by the law?

>>2142148
Hahaha, that's some stupid bullshit. Nevermind then.

>>2142224
I'd have no problem with them inspecting the products I make and sell to ensure their safety.

The problem is neither capitalism nor socialism, but corporatism.

all i know is i prefer that an impartial organization takes a look at the food i buy from china and god knows where else before i eat it, because i don't think i could test my vegetables for toxic chemicals myself

>>2141908

I have doubts that an unbiased consumer report would even be possible. They would need funding to print and research products. In the end, it would still be a corrupted report, another propaganda tool used by competiting corporations.

damn 17min mootblock :(

complete and utter totalitarianism is the way to go

>>2142193

Hardly. Being born into poverty doesn't really give you an option, and some of the hardest working people I know can barely get by. That type of blanket statement is total bullshit. Yes, there are a few lazy fucks who will always be happy to live off of the government, but that's the exception, not the rule.

>>2142281
Where is Outer Heaven on that chart?

>>2142281
well, actually under Communism wealth dispersion was pretty low. Also, they had remarkable capital acculmination.


Of course, it didn't do them much good.

>>2142295
Working hard isn't enough. You have to work smart, and make good decisions that lead to an increase in your quality of life. The difference between working hard and woring smart is the difference between punching a hole in a concrete wall with your fists and finding a door to walk through.

>>2142274
Isn't Consumer Reports already unbiased because they don't run ads? In anarchism more stuff like that would spring up.

>>2142339
Shouldn't the will to work hard at least ensure a decent living though? Some people just aren't born intelligent, that doesn't mean they deserve to live in poverty.

ITT: Bitches don't know about my criminal torts and strict liability.

>>2141379
Whoever made that chart is an idiot.
If Hitler was a capitalist, then I'm a nun.
Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" has an entire chapter devoted to the National Socialist German Workers' Party's Socialist roots. Hitler may have despised socialism (as he is widely quoted as saying), but he loved nationalizing industries.
Government controlling business =/= capitalism

>>2142359

No you might work hard trying to pull open the door, but that doesn't mean that you're doing more (or should earn more) than someone that spent less effort pushing it open.

If working harder is what earned you more money, then people would be cutting their arms and legs off.

>>2141685

For once CB is right. Holy crap...

socialist ideas colapse in a global economy, so capitalisim is more enduring

>>2142567

no, you meant to say:
"for once I agree with CB"

>>2142438

He was capitalist in the sense that in a Fascism the industries are allowed to perform in whatever way they want as long as they serve party interests. Open trade exists, still.

tl;dr china has it right and that is why they will eventually zerg rush all of you and rule the world KEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEEKEKEKE

>>2142691
That's like saying that he was Libertarian in the sense that the people were allowed to do whatever they wanted as long as it served party interests.

Double quotes require mootbloxxing.

>>2141474
>Nazis were corporatist/statist. Not capitalist.
>corporatist/statist

That's what capitalism means, you know.

>>2146591
RAGE

no it isn't you dense mother fucker! look up the definitions of those words

fffffffffffffffffff