[Sceptic]

It's not disturbing it's just a pretty good indicator that you don't understand logical priorities, or at least care for them.

On one hand this may be a theory I am unfamiliar with, in which case I put my hands up. Perhaps there is a book or article on this subject you may point me towards.

On the other hand it may just be the case that you are assuming that there is a reason why cause A may somehow be preferable to cause B. In this case, I ask, at what point does A have a 'logical priority' over B?

I'm not saying I don't want fuckable old-ladies, it's just we have a few things to do first. I want both, and that's why capitalists suck.

As I said, investing in cause A leads, by the velocity of monetary systems, to investment in cause B. Thus if there are certain causes that are more rational there is no reason why they will be given less priority in a market society. There is a market for everything that people can buy, from doughnuts and cosmetics to space exploration and cancer research. The main function for the State here lies in demand management otherwise there is no reason not to pay people for simply digging holes.

[philipsteele]

i think capitalism is mainly based on the economic and political system..and also the capitalist believed that an economy can run smoothly on its own through the natural mechanism of demand and supply...it is a type of competition between the goods and services or the buyers and sellers...

[KurtFF8]

That being said, I think the problem of innovation is over-stated. Largely, the intellectual minds behind innovations, in capitalist countries, are not the super rich (and this is true generally although there are exceptions). The brightest researchers (in both the private sector and in academia) tend not to make a whole lot more money than the average Joe-- and all their research, especially in the private sector, is issued a company patent and is not the private, intellectual property of the individual (and remember, a socialist economy does not give out equal wages). The super rich are responsible, in capitalist countries, for funding the innovation -- and their investment is proportional to the monetary return on such an investment, not on whether the specific product meets the substantial needs of people (although it is sometimes the case that it does, this is only a secondary effect and is often missing). Concerning funding research, I do not think that a socialist economy would be at any particular disadvantage (unless it was a generally poorer country).

To add to this: let's not forget that in the West a lot of research is actually done at the public university level. Many companies (I'm thinking of biotech in particular) will either simply use public research, or fund it through a sort of public-private partnership that requires public university help.

So the argument that innovation is simply the result of competition or even the protection of property rights seems to be demonstratively false in one of the most wealthy industries of the most wealth capitalist nation.

[DinodudeEpic]

Since when did capitalism=free market? (Probably when mutualism stopped getting popular actually.)

Socialism is democratic ownership of the means of production by the workers.

Of the workers
By the workers
For the workers

Capitalism is the oligarchic control over the means of production by wealth.

Of the corporate leaders
By the corporate leaders
For the corporate leaders

I believe that a free market is great, but the workers need to manage the businesses themselves via worker cooperatives.

[ralfy]

One starts with a free market, after which some become stronger than others, and we have free market capitalism, among others.

[KurtFF8]

How do you view the role of the state in promoting said free market?

[Paradigm]

Chomsky and Marx, to name just two.

Which of Marx's works have you read? I'd bet anything that Das Kapital is not one of them.

[USB]

When half of the labour forced are victimized by their employers for slander, assault and lots andlots of "ih_ de ____s (s*** ** b*****) how can one smile without grudginly do the household chores. Try to place yourselves in the place of the helpers and workers. How would you feel. The contradiction is not only palpable in the past such as in unbridled feudalism and capitalism. It is still blatantly palpable up to this point in time. When I was a factory worker in the old Soviet Union, I don't feel bitterness while working in the remote places of Siberia's oil fields. The manager was gracious, kind and generous. He always has kind words for us, workers. And he'd "rather end up fired than us". That was how the socialist man was moulded: someone with a PASSIONATE EYE. Where can you find this kind of man in capitalism.

[ralfy]

How do you view the role of the state in promoting said free market?

In allows such in exchange for tax revenues and supports those who emerge powerful from the same market.