Economic Systems

[kojikun]

We all know about capitalism, communism, and socialism, but what other kinds of economic systems are there in the world?

[RedImperator]

Mercantilism is the only one that's coming right to the top of my head, but it's been dead for over a century.

[Tsyroc]

barter, hunter-gatherer.

I imagine that those two or variations of them are still alive and well in parts of the world.

[NecronLord]

Force/Tribute ("Empty the register or i'll shoot you") - It can be argued that this is a form of economics.

[Gil Hamilton]

Barter -- where goods and/or services are traded for other goods and/or services directly without money being involved.

[Colonel Olrik]

In this World, there are various states. Capitalist states. Communist states. And the state this country is in. We are going to Lisbon to put an end to the state we are in. ~ Carnage Revolution hero, Salgueiro Maia.

[Axis Kast]

Barter. Merchantilism. Capitalism. Communism. Socialism. Facism.

[StimNeuro]

Barter. Merchantilism. Capitalism. Communism. Socialism. Facism.

Wait, I thought that Facism was a form of government, not an economic system...

[kojikun]

Fascism? I'd love to know how a sociopolitical system of absolutely loyalty translates into economics, considering that the big three fascist states of the last century (germany, italy, and japan) were rather heavy on capitalism.

[Joe]

If forcing business to cooperate with you is considered capitalism, I guess you could consider Germany fairly capitalist.

[Axis Kast]

To be certain, practice of Fascism carries with it certain economic preconditions. The last modern state to abandon the Fascist model completely was the Republic of South Africa, though the legacy – by way of its supreme utility - lives on in the United States to this day.

Whereas Capitalism relies upon the private entrepreneur to produce solely for market and Communism indicates that the State shall control all output as well as all means, Fascism is generally identified by private ownership under central oversight – an obliged association between the corporate and the politic, if you will. Fascism – best described as the bastardized lovechild of Karl Marx and Adam Smith – is technically visible in all democratic nations to this day. Nations that supposedly run on Capitalist principles inevitably draw on what are best described as Socialistic – and sometimes as Fascist – influences.

[kojikun]

To be certain, practice of Fascism carries with it certain economic preconditions. The last modern state to abandon the Fascist model completely was the Republic of South Africa, though the legacy ? by way of its supreme utility - lives on in the United States to this day.

Whereas Capitalism relies upon the private entrepreneur to produce solely for market and Communism indicates that the State shall control all output as well as all means, Fascism is generally identified by private ownership under central oversight ? an obliged association between the corporate and the politic, if you will. Fascism ? best described as the bastardized lovechild of Karl Marx and Adam Smith ? is technically visible in all democratic nations to this day. Nations that supposedly run on Capitalist principles inevitably draw on what are best described as Socialistic ? and sometimes as Fascist ? influences.

Thats a lot of shit your spewing. Fascism has never meant any of that. EVER.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Thats a lot of shit your spewing. Fascism has never meant any of that. EVER.

The ideology of fascism is one thing, kojikun; the practice (as with any political system) is another. In Nazi Germany, entrepeneurs owned property, factories, et cetera, but the government told them what they should do with their property. Like it or not, this is a distinct economic concept and it first appeared in Fascist states.

[kojikun]

The ideology of fascism is one thing, kojikun; the practice (as with any political system) is another. In Nazi Germany, entrepeneurs owned property, factories, et cetera, but the government told them what they should do with their property. Like it or not, this is a distinct economic concept and it first appeared in Fascist states.

It's still capitalism with heavy government influence. And hardly any people were tols were to do. You think bakeries were told what to bake unless they were feeding the army? No. It was more near socialism, without an OFFICIAL government link. It was socialism not "fascism".

[Pablo Sanchez]

It's still capitalism with heavy government influence. And hardly any people were tols were to do. You think bakeries were told what to bake unless they were feeding the army? No. It was more near socialism, without an OFFICIAL government link. It was socialism not "fascism".

Except that in Socialism the government owns the largest businesses. In Fascism they were privately owned. It's a subtle but very important distinction.

[Axis Kast]

Thats a lot of shit your spewing. Fascism has never meant any of that. EVER.

Why the hostility? No need to curse. This is a discussion of economic models, not ideological loyalties.

Like it or not, Fascism has survived beyond Nazi Germany - in both political and economic guise. Under successive Apartheid régimes, the Republic of South Africa was, as I have pointed out, the best modern example of a Fascist state. That does not however imply the similar demise of certain Fascist concepts that have proven survivable in the modern day, particularly New Nationalism and corporate syndicalism.

It's still capitalism with heavy government influence. And hardly any people were tols were to do. You think bakeries were told what to bake unless they were feeding the army? No. It was more near socialism, without an OFFICIAL government link. It was socialism not "fascism".

“Capitalism with heavy government influence” is no longer Capitalism at all. You’re trying to escape the truth by relying on technicalities. Unfortunate, you’ve no greater room to maneuver on those grounds than any other. By definition, Capitalism is absolutely unregulated economic competition. We’re talking about private ownership to reach private ends – without input from a third party. It’s strictly a goods-reach-consumer affair. If the government wishes to interact with said businesses under “true Capitalism,” it does so as merely another customer (and, to be sure, without any kind of moderating power if it wishes to preserve the purity and reality of the Capitalist mode).

Communism is in direct opposition. The means-of-production are under the purview of the State – as is distribution. The government is the business. Free markets don’t exist, only regulated and local perversions thereof. For obvious reasons – owing mostly to corruption, central poverty, and lack of decent oversight -, most Communism is domestic in practice. Even the Soviet Union realized the folly of total economic isolation early on – and for that reason was forced to become a player on the less-moderated international market almost immediately.

Socialism is an economic system whereby heavy taxes are extracted from citizens in return for the safety-net of “big government” – that is, almost total regulation of three major sectors: education, health, and labor/welfare. While private ownership is possible, there is heavy government input. This is similar to Fascism, although State ownership of major concerns is still frequent.

For all intents and purposes, Fascism (1) “one-ups” the Socialist system politically by perverting its Utopian ideologies toward inward consideration and (2) maintains near-universal private ownership of even “vital” industries, while at the same time avoiding the explicit moderation of the Socialist system; Fascist economics tend to be far less well-regulated from labor’s point-of-view. Dialogue occurs between government and ownership, not government and labor as is possible under the Socialist mode. Competition is under Socialism significantly retarded; Corporate Syndicalism is technically less protective of individuals within its own group (though a government may occasionally preserve faltering businesses for purposes of “national security”).

[Archaic`]

“Capitalism with heavy government influence” is no longer Capitalism at all. You’re trying to escape the truth by relying on technicalities.

Untrue. It is simply Capitalism with a Statist government model, as opposed to a Social Democratic or Liberal Democratic model. You can see the two forms of Statist models in nations such as France and Germany (1st form, with large government and high taxation, yet without certain elements that would distinguish it as a social democracy, such as powerful labour organisations which negociate with business and government on economic policy issues), and in Japan (2nd form, with small government and low taxation, yet with much stronger links between government and business than would exist in a liberal democracy, allowing it to play a steering role in the economy).

Unfortunate, you’ve no greater room to maneuver on those grounds than any other. By definition, Capitalism is absolutely unregulated economic competition.

Untrue. That is economic liberalism, which stands at the most extreme right end of the forms of capitalism. Capitalism is simply the economic system in which goods and services are produced for sale in a market by primarily private business. Commodity production is the central characteristic of capitalism, not unregulared economic competition.

We’re talking about private ownership to reach private ends – without input from a third party. It’s strictly a goods-reach-consumer affair. If the government wishes to interact with said businesses under “true Capitalism,” it does so as merely another customer (and, to be sure, without any kind of moderating power if it wishes to preserve the purity and reality of the Capitalist mode).

You have defined "True Capitalism" as being the most extreme form of economic liberalism/economic rationalism. This is simply a form of capitalism. If you think it is "True Capitalism", I think we'd all like some reasoning for that. As it stands, you seem to be strawmaning Capitalism.

Socialism is an economic system whereby heavy taxes are extracted from citizens in return for the safety-net of “big government” – that is, almost total regulation of three major sectors: education, health, and labor/welfare. While private ownership is possible, there is heavy government input. This is similar to Fascism, although State ownership of major concerns is still frequent.

Socialism is more correctly defined as a political ideology. It is not actually an economic system. Capitalist societies influenced by socialist theories are at the other end of the spectrum from economic liberalism. They are still capitalist.

[Axis Kast]

Untrue. It is simply Capitalism with a Statist government model, as opposed to a Social Democratic or Liberal Democratic model. You can see the two forms of Statist models in nations such as France and Germany (1st form, with large government and high taxation, yet without certain elements that would distinguish it as a social democracy, such as powerful labour organisations which negociate with business and government on economic policy issues), and in Japan (2nd form, with small government and low taxation, yet with much stronger links between government and business than would exist in a liberal democracy, allowing it to play a steering role in the economy).

Capitalism is by strict definition unregulated economic activity wherein the contact is only between private producer and private consumer - without third-party input or official regulation; hence why I can make the argument that elements of Fascism exist within the American economic system despite its claim to Capitalism. There is, in reality, no such thing as a “free market.” If you’re attempting to investigate other types of modified Capitalism in today’s world, then I’m afraid we’re each on a different page.

As for Germany lacking powerful labor organizations, think again. They’re home to the Western world’s largest organized unions. France and Germany are both Social Democracies. Whereas we temper our bastardized Capitalism – if it can truly be called that – with elements of the Fascist system, they prefer elements of the Communist system (which today we know as Socialism).

Your Japanese comparison is out of place. Their business tends to practice self-regulation between labor and management. That’s an issue of cultural rather than economic developments. While it may result in business influencing government, it’s not necessarily government influencing business (which is, of course, the focus of this analysis).

Untrue. That is economic liberalism, which stands at the most extreme right end of the forms of capitalism. Capitalism is simply the economic system in which goods and services are produced for sale in a market by primarily private business. Commodity production is the central characteristic of capitalism, not unregulared economic competition.

Unregulated competition is the specific characteristic of Capitalism. Commodity production is a basic characteristic of all economic systems. Capitalism is the economic system in which goods and services are produced for sale on the market by private business, period. No exceptions. Again, we’re getting supremely technical. This exercise is about identifying modifications on our perverted (but technically “most true”) brand of Capitalism wrought by Fascism.

You have defined "True Capitalism" as being the most extreme form of economic liberalism/economic rationalism. This is simply a form of capitalism. If you think it is "True Capitalism", I think we'd all like some reasoning for that. As it stands, you seem to be strawmaning Capitalism.

In very strict terms, Capitalism is unregulated trade between two private (or independent) parties – without outside input, period. That is “true Capitalism” as compared to the versions practiced worldwide – which, of course, inevitably borrow from several economic systems.

Socialism is more correctly defined as a political ideology. It is not actually an economic system. Capitalist societies influenced by socialist theories are at the other end of the spectrum from economic liberalism. They are still capitalist.

Such societies still display Capitalist behavior, yes.

The real point of all this arguing was to prove Fascism as an independent form of economic behavior. If you want to talk about different forms of practical (or rather, applied) Capitalism, that’s another issue entirely.

[Archaic`]

Untrue. It is simply Capitalism with a Statist government model, as opposed to a Social Democratic or Liberal Democratic model. You can see the two forms of Statist models in nations such as France and Germany (1st form, with large government and high taxation, yet without certain elements that would distinguish it as a social democracy, such as powerful labour organisations which negociate with business and government on economic policy issues), and in Japan (2nd form, with small government and low taxation, yet with much stronger links between government and business than would exist in a liberal democracy, allowing it to play a steering role in the economy).

Capitalism is by strict definition unregulated economic activity wherein the contact is only between private producer and private consumer - without third-party input or official regulation; hence why I can make the argument that elements of Fascism exist within the American economic system despite its claim to Capitalism. There is, in reality, no such thing as a “free market.” If you’re attempting to investigate other types of modified Capitalism in today’s world, then I’m afraid we’re each on a different page.

If it is what you believe the strict definition to be, kindly provide references. What you have defined is Economic Liberalism or Economic Rationalism, forms of Capitalism born from Liberal Democratic political thought. The strict definition of Capitalism is what I gave you above.

As for Germany lacking powerful labor organizations, think again. They’re home to the Western world’s largest organized unions. France and Germany are both Social Democracies. Whereas we temper our bastardized Capitalism – if it can truly be called that – with elements of the Fascist system, they prefer elements of the Communist system (which today we know as Socialism).

Communism =/= Socialism, and I would expect you to know that. Socialism existed before Communism for starters.

Red Herring. I did not say that you lacked organized labour unions. What they lack are powerful or united peak organisations of labour which negociate with business and government on economic policy issues. While I'm at it, they also lack long term stable parlimentary rule by social democratic parties. However, what they do have are a long tradition of state involvement in industrial development and change, making them by definition, Statism.

Your Japanese comparison is out of place. Their business tends to practice self-regulation between labor and management. That’s an issue of cultural rather than economic developments. While it may result in business influencing government, it’s not necessarily government influencing business (which is, of course, the focus of this analysis).

Red Herring. The majority of the credit for Japan having developed its economy so quickly belongs to the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI). If that's not government influencing business, what is?

Untrue. That is economic liberalism, which stands at the most extreme right end of the forms of capitalism. Capitalism is simply the economic system in which goods and services are produced for sale in a market by primarily private business. Commodity production is the central characteristic of capitalism, not unregulared economic competition.

Unregulated competition is the specific characteristic of Capitalism. Commodity production is a basic characteristic of all economic systems. Capitalism is the economic system in which goods and services are produced for sale on the market by private business, period. No exceptions. Again, we’re getting supremely technical. This exercise is about identifying modifications on our perverted (but technically “most true”) brand of Capitalism wrought by Fascism.

Are you done with this Strawman of Capitalism yet? I've already pointed out to you that you've defined Economic Liberalism, which is simply an extreme form of Capitalism.

You seem to have misunderstood what I meant by Commodity Production. A commodity is a good that is produced for sale for a price in the market. Commodity production exists when members of a society produce goods and services for sale rather than for direct consumption by the members of the community (Such as Communism proposed, and as existed in precapitalist societies, where commodities were produced in local communities and consumed directly by the inhabbitants of these communities).

You say, we're getting "supremely technical". I say, you're misrepresenting the points by providing these false strawman definitions.

As for your initial point....you and your partner here seem to be first saying that the practice of Facism, not the ideology, has influenced parts of modern economies, then say that facist concepts (Strange that these are now Facist concepts when they aren't a part of the ideology) have influenced economic principles. Perhaps you should go back and look up Statism again.

You have defined "True Capitalism" as being the most extreme form of economic liberalism/economic rationalism. This is simply a form of capitalism. If you think it is "True Capitalism", I think we'd all like some reasoning for that. As it stands, you seem to be strawmaning Capitalism.

In very strict terms, Capitalism is unregulated trade between two private (or independent) parties – without outside input, period. That is “true Capitalism” as compared to the versions practiced worldwide – which, of course, inevitably borrow from several economic systems.

No, that's economic liberalism, a form of capitalism. Again, I'm calling you on this strawman. Will you provide references, or concede the point?

Socialism is more correctly defined as a political ideology. It is not actually an economic system. Capitalist societies influenced by socialist theories are at the other end of the spectrum from economic liberalism. They are still capitalist.

Such societies still display Capitalist behavior, yes.

The real point of all this arguing was to prove Fascism as an independent form of economic behavior. If you want to talk about different forms of practical (or rather, applied) Capitalism, that’s another issue entirely.

If it's not part of the ideology of Facism, as you said yourself previously, how is Facism itself a form of economic behaviour? What you seem to describe as a Facist economy, private ownership under a central oversight, is simply a Capitalist economy in which there is a Statist government.

[Axis Kast]

If it is what you believe the strict definition to be, kindly provide references. What you have defined is Economic Liberalism or Economic Rationalism, forms of Capitalism born from Liberal Democratic political thought. The strict definition of Capitalism is what I gave you above.

According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the definition of “Capitalism (n.)” is as follows:

“An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.”
A “free market (n.) is defined as follows:

“An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.”

Socialism evades this definition. Government interaction with business is, even under the European model, often quite significant – especially where “vital” sectors such as transportation and energy are concerned.

And if you ask me, this offers a practical rather than a literal translation of Capitalism. As defined by Adam Smith, free trade was commercial interaction (i.e. buying and selling) between two parties unfettered by intervention or restriction.

Communism =/= Socialism, and I would expect you to know that. Socialism existed before Communism for starters.

Red Herring. I did not say that you lacked organized labour unions. What they lack are powerful or united peak organisations of labour which negociate with business and government on economic policy issues. While I'm at it, they also lack long term stable parlimentary rule by social democratic parties. However, what they do have are a long tradition of state involvement in industrial development and change, making them by definition, Statism.

Socialism is, as was pointed out, a political model. Communism is its economic equivalent. Hence my choice of words.

Once more, Germany is home to the world’s largest labor union – and one that regularly instigates debate in Federal Parliament. It is incorrect to argue that Germany ‘s economy or political bodies are beyond the influence of such organizations.

Red Herring. The majority of the credit for Japan having developed its economy so quickly belongs to the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI). If that's not government influencing business, what is?

You were referring to the Japanese practice of business whereby labor is equated as a sort of family group. That’s a cultural development.

s for your initial point....you and your partner here seem to be first saying that the practice of Facism, not the ideology, has influenced parts of modern economies, then say that facist concepts (Strange that these are now Facist concepts when they aren't a part of the ideology) have influenced economic principles. Perhaps you should go back and look up Statism again.

Fascist concepts have indeed influenced modern economies. Again, Fascism as an economic model presents the following picture: private ownership of business with central oversight. Under no other system is this the norm. Fascism was more than simple ideology.

No, that's economic liberalism, a form of capitalism. Again, I'm calling you on this strawman. Will you provide references, or concede the point?

Where are your references? This appears to have become a clash of opinion. You’re trying to break down what I consider a basic term.

If it's not part of the ideology of Facism, as you said yourself previously, how is Facism itself a form of economic behaviour? What you seem to describe as a Facist economy, private ownership under a central oversight, is simply a Capitalist economy in which there is a Statist government.

Capitalism is not an ideology. The economic applications of Fascism mustn’t necessary be ideological.

You’re looking at the situation from a different angel, I think. The original challenge was to name forms of economic behavior. But from what I can tell, you’re arguing that only Capitalism and Communism exist in the modern world. I disagree. I find Fascism distinct. Then again, I don’t differentiate between “types” Capitalism so much as influences from other systems upon it.

[Archaic`]

Don't have time to post a full rebuttal now. Will do that when I get home later. For now though....

If it is what you believe the strict definition to be, kindly provide references. What you have defined is Economic Liberalism or Economic Rationalism, forms of Capitalism born from Liberal Democratic political thought. The strict definition of Capitalism is what I gave you above.

According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the definition of “Capitalism (n.)” is as follows:

“An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.”
A “free market (n.) is defined as follows:

“An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.”

Socialism evades this definition. Government interaction with business is, even under the European model, often quite significant – especially where “vital” sectors such as transportation and energy are concerned.

And if you ask me, this offers a practical rather than a literal translation of Capitalism. As defined by Adam Smith, free trade was commercial interaction (i.e. buying and selling) between two parties unfettered by intervention or restriction.

Well now, now we know half your problem. You're using a dictionary. While they provide the definition of words based upon their common usage, that definition is often not quite correct (Case in point, definitions of Atheist). In this case, what it's provided is a definition of Capitalism as it is often seen in western democracies. ie. A definition of Economic Liberalism. Hardly a strict definition afterall, is it?

Your attempt to distance Socialism from capitalism is noted, however given that your definition of capitalism was flawed to begin with, it doesn't work.

Your definition of Free Trade is a red herring. While Free Trade and Free Markets are aspects of some forms of capitalism, in particular economic liberalism, they are not by themselves capitalism.

No, that's economic liberalism, a form of capitalism. Again, I'm calling you on this strawman. Will you provide references, or concede the point?

Where are your references? This appears to have become a clash of opinion. You’re trying to break down what I consider a basic term.

Trying to? I would say I've already done it.

Ryan, N., Parker, R., Brown, K. (2003) government, business and society, Frenches Forest: Prentice Hall

Good enough?

If it's not part of the ideology of Facism, as you said yourself previously, how is Facism itself a form of economic behaviour? What you seem to describe as a Facist economy, private ownership under a central oversight, is simply a Capitalist economy in which there is a Statist government.

Capitalism is not an ideology. The economic applications of Fascism mustn’t necessary be ideological.

I must ask, since when did the principles of Fascism ever include principles which governed the economic policies of the facist governments? The fact that those were the principles the fascists implimented does not by definition make them fascist principles. I think you'll find that these so called "economic applications of Fascism" were simply incidental.

You’re looking at the situation from a different angel, I think. The original challenge was to name forms of economic behavior. But from what I can tell, you’re arguing that only Capitalism and Communism exist in the modern world. I disagree. I find Fascism distinct. Then again, I don’t differentiate between “types” Capitalism so much as influences from other systems upon it.

That's essentially it. There are a number of varieties of capitalism, as distinguished by models of government, certain ideological points with respect to the freedom of the market, equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcomes, etc, etc. What you've defined as a Facist Economy is, to me, simply a Statist Government running a Socialistic Capitalist economy.

[Axis Kast]

quote] Well now, now we know half your problem. You're using a dictionary. While they provide the definition of words based upon their common usage, that definition is often not quite correct (Case in point, definitions of Atheist). In this case, what it's provided is a definition of Capitalism as it is often seen in western democracies. ie. A definition of Economic Liberalism. Hardly a strict definition afterall, is it?[/quote]

What this boils down to is a matter of opinion. Your basic definition of Capitalism is different – indeed, far more broad - than my own.

Your attempt to distance Socialism from capitalism is noted, however given that your definition of capitalism was flawed to begin with, it doesn't work.

My definition of Capitalism was not at all flawed. Again, you’re approaching the situation from another angle.

Your definition of Free Trade is a red herring. While Free Trade and Free Markets are aspects of some forms of capitalism, in particular economic liberalism, they are not by themselves capitalism.

The term “free market” required qualification since it appeared in the definition.

Trying to? I would say I've already done it.

Ryan, N., Parker, R., Brown, K. (2003) government, business and society, Frenches Forest: Prentice Hall

Good enough?

Your break-down is legitimate only from your point of view. I approach economics from a more basic point of view.

You can cite the source. Where’s the quote? And don’t tell me you’re going on personal analysis of something you’ve read. That puts us right back at square one.

I must ask, since when did the principles of Fascism ever include principles which governed the economic policies of the facist governments? The fact that those were the principles the fascists implimented does not by definition make them fascist principles. I think you'll find that these so called "economic applications of Fascism" were simply incidental.

Fascism is more than New Nationalism. Mussolini’s brainchild – later modified by Hitler – was more than political or ideological. It involved certain economic principles known as corporate syndicalism.

That's essentially it. There are a number of varieties of capitalism, as distinguished by models of government, certain ideological points with respect to the freedom of the market, equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcomes, etc, etc. What you've defined as a Facist Economy is, to me, simply a Statist Government running a Socialistic Capitalist economy.

You argue that there are varieties of capitalism - all under one roof, as it were. I argue that there are varieties of economic activity – built of the basics, if you will. Fascism is distinctly separate from Capitalism because the principle of non-intervention is disregarded. Fascism is distinctly separate from Communism because private ownership of business is maintained. Fascism is distinctly separate from Socialism (where classified as an economic system) because virtually no major corporations are State-owned. If we’re entering your consumer commodity argument into the picture, there are more peculiarities. Capitalism deals with consumer commodities only. Communism disregards them entirely. Fascism (alongside Socialism, according to some) stands at the center.

[Archaic`]

Well now, now we know half your problem. You're using a dictionary. While they provide the definition of words based upon their common usage, that definition is often not quite correct (Case in point, definitions of Atheist). In this case, what it's provided is a definition of Capitalism as it is often seen in western democracies. ie. A definition of Economic Liberalism. Hardly a strict definition afterall, is it?

What this boils down to is a matter of opinion. Your basic definition of Capitalism is different – indeed, far more broad - than my own.

Different, and quite correct. Let me reiterate. You are defining a form of Capitalism, called Economic Liberalism or Economic Rationalism. To present this as Capitalism is to Strawman Capitalism, for Capitalism is far more broad and all encompassing.

Your attempt to distance Socialism from capitalism is noted, however given that your definition of capitalism was flawed to begin with, it doesn't work.

My definition of Capitalism was not at all flawed. Again, you’re approaching the situation from another angle.

See above.

Your definition of Free Trade is a red herring. While Free Trade and Free Markets are aspects of some forms of capitalism, in particular economic liberalism, they are not by themselves capitalism.

The term “free market” required qualification since it appeared in the definition.

Free Market is not the same as Free Trade. Another Red Herring. Let me show you what you said.

"And if you ask me, this offers a practical rather than a literal translation of Capitalism. As defined by Adam Smith, free trade was commercial interaction (i.e. buying and selling) between two parties unfettered by intervention or restriction"

You presented in a definition of Free Trade. That was a Red Herring from the definition of Capitalism at best, and a Strawman of Capitalism at worst.

Trying to? I would say I've already done it.

Ryan, N., Parker, R., Brown, K. (2003) government, business and society, Frenches Forest: Prentice Hall

Good enough?

Your break-down is legitimate only from your point of view. I approach economics from a more basic point of view.

Define "a more basic point of view" for us. I approach economics from the perspective of a prospective businessman and student of economic and political science. What you have given are "practical definitions". I am correcting your "practical defitions", which are simply stating what you percieve capitalism to be, with the correct definition.

You can cite the source. Where’s the quote? And don’t tell me you’re going on personal analysis of something you’ve read. That puts us right back at square one.

Very well then. I was hoping you might be familiar with the book and that I'd be able to save myself all this typing.

"Capitalism is an economic system in which goods and services are produce for sale in the market for a price by private business. ... Commodity production makes capitalism different from economic systems which preceeded it. A commodity is a good produced for sale for a price in the market. Commodity production exists when members of society produce goods and services for sale rather than for direct consumption by the members of the community. ... In precapitalist societies, goods and services were produced in order for them to be used by the local community. In capitalist societies, goods and services are produced for the purpose of making profits through sale in the market (Bissett 2001). ... Markets play a central role in captalist economies. Markets are based on the interactions of private businesses or individuals." (Ryan, Parker, Brown: 2003, pp.19-20)

"The Market dominates most capitalist societies, however, the state plays some role in coordinating economic activity, managing crises and providing social justice. The state might influence the quantity and type of goods and services that will be produced in the market through its industry policies. ... So while the market plays a central role in capitalist econmomies, it is not free from government influence. In theory, the state regulates the market in the interests of society, in order to satisfy social objectives." (Ryan, Parker, Brown: 2003, pp.24)

"In capitaist economic systems, most decisions about the production and distribution of resources are made by private businesses operating in the market. ... However, the state plays some role in coordinating economic activity in an effort to satisfy social objectives." (Ryan, Parker, Brown: 2003, pp.27)

I must ask, since when did the principles of Fascism ever include principles which governed the economic policies of the facist governments? The fact that those were the principles the fascists implimented does not by definition make them fascist principles. I think you'll find that these so called "economic applications of Fascism" were simply incidental.

Fascism is more than New Nationalism. Mussolini’s brainchild – later modified by Hitler – was more than political or ideological. It involved certain economic principles known as corporate syndicalism.

Could you outline these? I believe I know what you're talking about, in which case it's simply Statism with a certain society power structure, but I don't have a definition of what you've mentioned there.

That's essentially it. There are a number of varieties of capitalism, as distinguished by models of government, certain ideological points with respect to the freedom of the market, equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcomes, etc, etc. What you've defined as a Facist Economy is, to me, simply a Statist Government running a Socialistic Capitalist economy.

You argue that there are varieties of capitalism - all under one roof, as it were. I argue that there are varieties of economic activity – built of the basics, if you will. Fascism is distinctly separate from Capitalism because the principle of non-intervention is disregarded. Fascism is distinctly separate from Communism because private ownership of business is maintained. Fascism is distinctly separate from Socialism (where classified as an economic system) because virtually no major corporations are State-owned. If we’re entering your consumer commodity argument into the picture, there are more peculiarities. Capitalism deals with consumer commodities only. Communism disregards them entirely. Fascism (alongside Socialism, according to some) stands at the center.

Let's go through these....

"Fascism is distinctly separate from Capitalism because the principle of non-intervention is disregarded."
- Not a principle of Capitalism.

"Fascism is distinctly separate from Socialism (where classified as an economic system) because virtually no major corporations are State-owned."
- Examples please? I find it hard to believe that in that day and age, that major corporations such as public utilities would have been out of the states control.

"Fascism (alongside Socialism, according to some) stands at the center."
- How so?



Reply to the parts of your above post that I missed shortly.

[Archaic`]

Communism =/= Socialism, and I would expect you to know that. Socialism existed before Communism for starters.

Red Herring. I did not say that you lacked organized labour unions. What they lack are powerful or united peak organisations of labour which negociate with business and government on economic policy issues. While I'm at it, they also lack long term stable parlimentary rule by social democratic parties. However, what they do have are a long tradition of state involvement in industrial development and change, making them by definition, Statism.

Socialism is, as was pointed out, a political model. Communism is its economic equivalent. Hence my choice of words.

Once more, Germany is home to the world’s largest labor union – and one that regularly instigates debate in Federal Parliament. It is incorrect to argue that Germany ‘s economy or political bodies are beyond the influence of such organizations.

How pray tell is Communism the economic equivalent of Socialism?

"It is incorrect to argue that Germany ‘s economy or political bodies are beyond the influence of such organizations."
Strawman. I did not say this. Let me reiterate myself from the beginning, using a quote from the book used above, with highlights on the most relevant points for Germany.

"... France and Germany falls short of the social democratic model because they do not have powerful or united peak organisations of labour which negociate with business and government on economic police issues. These countries also lack long-term stable parlimentary rule by social democratic political parties. Despite the existance of high government spending and taxation in these countries, they have not until recently been successful in redressing cyclical unemployment in the way achieved in most social democratic nations. However, both countries have a long tradition of state involvement in industrial development and change, and therefore demonstrate the characteristics of statism (Schmidt 1996b; Weiss 1997)." (Ryan, Parker, Brown: 2003, pp.68)

Red Herring. The majority of the credit for Japan having developed its economy so quickly belongs to the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI). If that's not government influencing business, what is?

You were referring to the Japanese practice of business whereby labor is equated as a sort of family group. That’s a cultural development.

Read back over my post. I did no such thing.

" Japan (2nd form, with small government and low taxation, yet with much stronger links between government and business than would exist in a liberal democracy, allowing it to play a steering role in the economy)."

s for your initial point....you and your partner here seem to be first saying that the practice of Facism, not the ideology, has influenced parts of modern economies, then say that facist concepts (Strange that these are now Facist concepts when they aren't a part of the ideology) have influenced economic principles. Perhaps you should go back and look up Statism again.

Fascist concepts have indeed influenced modern economies. Again, Fascism as an economic model presents the following picture: private ownership of business with central oversight. Under no other system is this the norm. Fascism was more than simple ideology.

You've yet to show that these are Facist concepts, while I've already shown them as Statist concepts. You've already conceeded the point that they aren't Facist concepts by stating that they were concepts of New Nationalism. I'll wait for you to provide a reference on the economic concepts you said were a part of New Nationalism before going on.

[Archaic`]

Damnit, forgot to disable smilies in the above post. The reference of course should be
(Ryan, Parker, Brown: 2003, pp.68)