Originally Posted by middleagedgamer

the United States, in general, is against socialism.

Originally Posted by middleagedgamer

we mostly did not oppose socialism so strongly until the Cold War

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

No it doesn't. the power of capitalism is equally split between the supply, and the demand. Capitalism, when allowed, will bring markets into equilibrium because capitalism functions on human nature.

Where the problem with capitalism arises is when there is a high demand of its abolition, which usually increases and decreases with the business cycle because, you know, power hungry individuals like to use mere slumps for their own political gain which, in turn, induces plutocracy within the government and, as generations go by without checks, finally destroys capitalism and replaces it with plutocracy.

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

I would love to see an example of this Capitalism (or this Socialism) that has, or ever will, reach its idealistic plateau. As soon as companies were able to, in America, they would eat other companies and (in Steel's case) destroy any competition. We cannot allow true monopolies because they are "un-democratic", but monopolies are a characteristic of Capitalism.
Thus all the money will consolidate with the few; there's no way around this you can only make populist legislation (Sherman Anti-trust), but we've seen time and time again that the aristocrats and businessmen find way around these acts.

Originally Posted by DrunkenAsparagus

Big government is big business's best friend. Regulations, higher taxes for big business, and tax exemptions often hold back small businesses and allow big business to crush their competition due to their ability to go around or absorb the impact of Uncle Sam. A monopoly in a largely free market with very few restrictions will find it almost impossible to form a monoploy. The trusts of a century ago where largely a product of land giveaways, tarrifs, and corruption in government. Market Capitalism, isn't a perfect system, there will still be poverty, however countries with largely free economies have industrialized far faster than those with a large state hindering them

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

You make industrialization sound like a good thing.

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

It still doesn't object to the fact that Capitalism and Socialism lead to a Plutocratic or Oligarchic government.

Originally Posted by middleagedgamer

I've known all my life that the United States, in general, is against socialism.

However, we mostly did not oppose socialism so strongly until the Cold War, when everything that the Soviet Union did was evil, and if you so much as had a neutral position, much less a sympathetic one, against any kind of Soviet policy, you were instantly labeled a (potential) traitor, per the terms of McCarthysm and the Red Scare.

However, both McCarthysm and the Red Scare are frowned upon by us, now that we have the luxury of hindsight. We were largely overreacting to the possibility of letting the USSR even a toe inside our doors.

However, the biggest reason that we hated the Soviets during the cold war was not because of our conflicting opinions about economics; it was about our conflicting opinions about human rights. Stalin would instantly kill any Russian he even thought, much less coud prove, was not totally supportive of his regime. No trials, no appeals. The government was largely oligarchic in terms of political influence, and they used terrorism to keep most of the citizens in line.

This totally conflicted with everything that the United States held dear: That all men are created equal, that they are bestowed upon them by their creator with certain, unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Stalin's regime violated at least those first two, and therefore, they were natural enemies of the United States.

The Red Scare and McCarthysm caused one thing to lead to another, and before we knew it, anything that could even be remotely tied to the Soviet Union was the belief of a US traitor, and socialism was one of them, but that doesn't mean that it is inherently bad.

I will now go down the list of the most common criticisms of socialism, and provide explanations against them, in the favor of socialism.

Effect on individual freedom.
Who said we have to be like Stalin? People can have recourses with which to address their grievences. In fact, current capitalism only allows for the right to petition the government. Private organizations, such as employers, are not required to respect any first-amendment rights except religion, including the right to free speech, the right to peacefully assemble ("You want to rally in front of City Hall? Fine, but do it off shift, or you're fired for no-showing"), and they might even fire you because you peititioned the manager for a wage increase. You have almost no right to privacy that your employer cannot make you sign away, and you have to sign it because you lack the bargaining power to refuse it.

With socialism, you can have your own company; you can have profits, but you'll have a lot more rights that you must respect if you're going to do it.

Distorted or absent price signals

So, basically, companies can no longer set their prices as they like, meaning no more fine print, no more retarded rebate schemes, no more ommitting the S&H from infomercial pricing? Oh my god, the world's gonna collapse in on itself!

Reduced incentives for workers

Not necessarily. If workers received a commision bonus, instead of an hourly wage, then they would have an incentive to work as hard and as much as they could. This is commonly referred to as "independent contractors," and some people don't like that because they aren't entitled to various things, such as workers' compensation and civil rights protection. See my section on individual freedom for my answer to that.

Also, they can have a fixed, familiar procedure for getting promoted, based solely on job performance, and nothing else. Computers, not people, decide who has performed the most adequetly. Computers, not people, conduct the interviews and oversee the training regiment. This seems scarey at first, but it will eliminate people "politicing" their way to the top, so it just might be worth it. You can become a CEO, or a Congressman, as long as you don't sleep and politic your way to the top. You'll have to earn your success, rather than have it handed to you on a silver platter. Success will be based on what you know, rather than who you know.

Reduced prosperity and slow technological advancement

Who says? People can have their small businesses, and even publicly-traded corporations. People can have their patented inventions; socialism merely regulates how they can be abused (not used, but abused). If someone invents a pill that can cure cancer, should they be allowed to charge $50,000,000 for it?

"If you don't give me that pill, my daughter will die!"
"Give me fifty million dollars and I'll give you the pill."

That sounds like a ransom to me. "If you want your daughter to live, I want fifty million dollars, or she'll die! MWAH HA HA HA HAAAAAA!"

These are the most common issues I've found against socialism. Do any of your capitalist extremists still have anything to say?

Originally Posted by DrunkenAsparagus

Socialism doesn't work well