Discuss: Market Socialism

[BayCityProgressive]

A good or bad idea?

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. First rule of a debate: Define your terms.

Describe what you mean by "market socialism" and we can go from there.

[BayCityProgressive]

3. Alright

I don't know that I am really for or against it but basically, nationalizing education, food/nutrition, and healthcare and resources such as oil. Allowing private enterprise to exist with regulations. Perhaps use government planning to encourage certain sectors of the private industry as needed. I wouldn't advocate a highly centralized government though. That seems to take power from the people.

[tocqueville]

4. what you describe is France, Germany, Sweden etc...

with the exception that production of food and energy is private. The distribution of energy is mostly in the states hands... to avoid that people don't get access to energy for bankrupcy or corporate competition

Most of the public transportation, post offices etc... is in the states hand or the state is a majority share holder (for the same basic reason, nobody can't be left behind for private reasons)

The Government can pump in money in different sectors if needed.

Private enterprise is regulated regarding laws for firing employees, social security, health care

Government isn't specially centralized in those countries.

[leftofthedial]

5. strongly for it

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. Ok, then

I've talked to a lot of people about socialism, and everyone seems to have different views. That's why I wanted to make sure I knew what you meant before I started in :think:

By and large, I am a capitalist. However, I also believe that laissez-faire, libertarian capitalism has proven to be a Very Bad Idea. I like knowing (ok, being reasonably sure) that my all-beef hot dog has no dog, that my whole grain bread does not contain sawdust, that my milk is not mostly water mixed with titanium oxide, that the medicines I take every day for cholesterol and diabetes are not going to dissolve my heart or make my toes rot away. Regulated capitalism combines the best of consumer safety and entrepeneurial drive, so I am generally in favor of allowing private enterprise to exist.

While I am a strong supporter of the public school system, I believe that education should remain largely a matter of local control, not centralized at the state level and certainly not at the national level. Having all decisions on curriculum, teacher pay, building maintenance, etc. made by professional bureaucrats on the other side of the continent, even on the other side of the state, I would strongly oppose. And think about it: with a Bush appointed board setting the nation's school policy, what are the chances that Christian prayer would be mandated, truthful sex education would be supressed and "intelligent" design would taught as proven fact? So I would have to say that I am against nationalizing education.

State and federal governments have been encouraging certain sectors of private industry for decades. That is the whole point of farm subsidies and tax breaks to corporations. Unfortunately, most of these have become a colossal waste of tax money. I fail to see why a transnational food conglomerate, who is going to plant a million acres of soy anyway, should get vast sums of money because they are not planting corn or cotton. Cautiously in favor, but with very strict limits on who can benefit.

As far as nationalizing necessary resources such as food and health care... I think there are ways to make these resources more available without nationalizing them, some of which the government can do and some of which require public mobilization to change industry rules and practices.

Energy resources such as oil... dang it all, I would dearly love to see Haliburton nationalized and it's profits going to social security, a national health insurance program, housing projects and hunger prevention programs. I just don't see how that can work, or how the precedent of government seizing corporations will help the overall economy.

[tocqueville]

2. self deleted