I don't think any of us is suggesting a purely socialist economy. The 
question we are debating is to what degree our capitalism should be 
tempered by socialist concerns. The United States has the economy that 
is perhaps the closest in the world to true capitalism. Canada, England, 
and Germany are all examples of successful economies that are less 
purely capitalistic than our own because they have a larger social 
safety net; these are surely not police states.

The twentieth century has taught us that socialist economies imposed by 
Communist governments do not work. It has not taught us what is the best 
set of policies for a democratic government to enact to ensure that 
their (mostly) capitalist economy best serves the interests of its people.

Matt

Andrew Reeves wrote:
>    Danny, and everybody else in this dinosaurian debate
> (please forward as appropriate, as I am not sure how to do that):
> 
>    You are goading me to enter the fray, but I am still resisting. One of
> the great luxuries I am enjoying as an American is that I do not HAVE to 
> get
> involved in debates of this sort, in glaring contrast to early-Communist
> Hungary in the late 1940's when "Dialectic Materialism: the Overthrow of
> Exploitation in a New and Just Society" became a required subject in the
> CHEMISTRY (as well as any other) curriculum at the University while the
> classes on "Resonance Theory of Chemical Bonding", along with all biology
> classes based on the gene theory of heredity, were dropped. This was by no
> means an isolated phenomenon: ideologic purity was valued higher than
> technical expertise in all Communist societies whose first priority was,
> naturally, self-preservation. It was this mentality, eventually overriding
> all other considerations, that was the decisive kick in my ass to assume 
> all
> the dangers and difficulties of escape and starting a new life from scratch
> in the West.
> 
>    You guys seem to have been asleep (or perhaps not born yet) during most
> of the twentieth century. As far as I am concerned, the mention of 
> dinosaurs
> in the salutation was not only a reference to their size, but also to their
> obsoleteness. Today, after the conclusion of this most turbulent century in
> human history, it is no longer necessary to compare societal systems on
> their  THEORETICAL beauties.	We now have historic experience. The "Daddy"
> model, the "Coconut" model, and all others, including the "value surplus"
> model of Marx, are of course ludicrous oversimplifications.You can debate
> those models until you are blue in the face. Why not just look at the
> HISTORIC RECORD, and realize that Socialism, for all its good intentions,
> DOES NOT WORK and must be eventually propped up by police support that in
> the Stalinist/Maoist extreme became a veritable nightmare. Capitalism, for
> all its basic selfishness, WORKS and does not need internal reinforcement.
> That does not mean that it is perfect, and the Capitalist system is indeed
> constantly subject to vigorous debate and changes here-and-there. Try to
> just suggest this in a Socialist/ Communist society and you know where you
> will end up. And if you say it is unfair to compare the American model to
> say Russia which was subject to absolutism even under the Czars, I have the
> perfect controlled experiment for you: Just compare East and West Germany
> 1949-1989. One people, one tradition, comparable industrial/agricultural
> base; only the occupying power and the governments they imposed  was
> different. Then compare their standard of living, personal freedoms, even
> the bare looks of towns and villages. QED, and you guys can go on beating
> your dead horse.
> 
> --Danny's Grandpa (now also Great-Grandpa) Andrew.