Dear Mitchell,

I was referring to capitalism and socialism as -
the two basic economic systems in the world.
Capitalism in which the means of production and
distribution are privately owned. Socialism, in
which the means of production and distribution
are publicly owned. However as I tried to
point out neither system exists in pure form.
Their concepts represent merely an "ideal type."
I did not talk about 'Soviet-Style Socialism.'

The problem that I have with people
raving on about
capitalism is that they don't
mention the drawbacks such as
marked social inequality,
a large impoverished lower class,
and repeated cycles of prosperity and
recession, employment and unemployment.
No capitalist society has yet found
a way out of these dilemmas.

Of course while socialist societies
may distribute wealth more evenly
than capitalist ones, they are less
efficient at creating wealth in the
first place. Socialist economies are
more bureaucratic and less productive
than capitalist ones.
Perhaps the ideal answer would be a
blend of capitalist and socialist
elements - which is what democratic
socialism is - and exists in many
countries of Western Europe, such as
Denmark.

Dear Pynchme,

I don't mind being called Romany at all.

It's a great compliment - Thank You!

Foxy,
Socialist societies are surely a hypothetical, since none exists or can co-habit with capitalism. And Stalin's Soviet Union signifies the archetypal decline of socialism into bureaucracy, does it not?
Capitalist societies are also, surely, too productive? creating in the process their own fodder (population growth); from whom they can then derive bogus kudos for having liberated them from squalor?
Democratic socialism does have runs on the board and is, perhaps, a better system (and I didn't mean to imply that Sweden was on its own), though its religion is still capitalism and thus it's unsustainable. Indeed democratic socialism, in the context of a global village, is like a privileged industry (Cadbury for instance) or a spoiled union.
The big problem is of course, despite the politics, endless growth in a closed system. The wealthy are doomed to eventual penury, and the poor, or means of production, cannot be attenuated forever. The system is fundamentally (economically) flawed. It would work in an open system--as the world must have seemed to Adam Smith in his day--but then that still would have left the problem of an economics predicated on visceral human drives--which poor Adam Smith, being an enlightenment philosopher, mistook as being essentially philanthropic.
"Perhaps the ideal answer would be a
blend of capitalist and socialist
elements - which is what democratic
socialism is".
Perhaps, but minus the capitalism, which is the rogue element in any political system?

Dear Mitchell,

In actuality, there are two very divergent
forms of socialism in the modern world -
one practiced in authoritarian,
communist-ruled societies - (used to be
mostly in Eastern Europe), and Asia,
and one practiced in democratic, pluralist
societies, mostly in Western Europe.
These versions differ markedly in their
degree of centralized control of the
economy, and in the liberties their
citizens enjoy.

However most of the countries of Western
Europe have been moving away in a more capitalist
direction. There are also indisputable signs
that the communist-ruled societies are
embracing aspects of capitalism, especially
through their use of financial incentives.
They are finally confronting the fact that
their system is inherently inefficient.
The trend in all these societies is now
toward greater rewards for individual effort.

Economic convergence does appear to be taking
place - but will political convergence
follow?

It will be interesting to see how China will
develop in years to come and whether economic
liberalization will in turn lead to political
democratization. Given China's size and
potential, its economic future will be of
world-historical significance.

There are no socialist or communist systems worthy of the name, nor could one compete with capitalism in the global village. There are outlaw socialist dictatorships such as North Korea, authoritarian capitalism like China and South East Asia generally, and welfare capitalism like Sweden and co. All the world's political systems are either predicated on, have capitulated to, or are one way or another enthral to or victimised by capitalism--excepting perhaps a few micro indigenous economies yet to be appropriated.
The reasons alternative systems can gain no purchase in the world are complex, but in no small part due to the profligacy of capitalism--hence my comment about it being "too" productive--they can't compete.
The supposed moral ascendency of democratic (read hegemonic) capitalism is a bourgeois conceit. A manifest lie
But why are we splitting hairs? Capitalism, whatever the political sophistry, runs the world's markets, unconscionably and unsustainably. We agree on that I think? The political spin, whatever it might be, boils down to "pull the ladder up". No?
I'm not a loony lefty, Foxy and would love to be converted! Can I borrow your rose tinted glasses?

I'm with Mitchell on this one both examples are perversions of Socialism and Communism in reality. Likewise Capitalism has been hijacked and is now something else.

He has said more clearly, much of what I have been advocating for ....ever.

Well said sir.

It seems that taking people seriously is a source of malicious amusement for some. analogous to dog fighting ...what it says about the instigators is sad.

Dear Mitchell,

I don't wear glasses - but you can borrow
my sunnies - PRADA of course! :-)