|
Edited on Sun Sep-26-10 11:09 AM by activa8tr
much of the real and eventual costs.
State ownership of the profits does not guarantee an equitable distribution of them for the benefit of all, just as private ownership CERTAINLY does not either. A modified socialist/capitalist mix provides greater insurance of checks upon each, as long as both state and private ownership stay relatively equal in power to influence and jointly control. The problem in the USA, (unlike other mixed socialist/capitalist western democracies) is that the private ownership model has been given much greater power and influence over the balancing of the mix. A most recent example is the Supreme Court deciding that corporations have unlimited powers of free speech with their dollars in political campaigns, (again, unlike other modern democratic states in Canada, Europe, etc.)
Private capitalism DOES SERVE a purpose in modern democratic and free nations. The problem comes when their powers become too oppressive, gutting the abilities of the people in the democracy to control their nation's destiny through reasonable policies of taxation and setting of national priorities. This is exactly the battleground we see this fall in the "Bush tax cuts" debate, with big industry and billionaires fighting to keep the tax cuts permanent.
By and large, progressive Democrats understand these concepts and issues, and have a reasonable plan to balance private capitalist greed against the real needs of the average worker people. By and large, Republicans simply don't have a clue, and that includes all the Tea bagger folks, who are secretly funded (and made to fear socialism) by big money capitalists.
|