Historically, America has been a capitalist country (at least ideologically). Nevertheless, American voters tolerated a massive federal government devouring their wealth and wasting it on ill-conceived foreign wars and a massive public relation–excuse me–space exploration adventures.
If you were to be transported back to the 1950s and you asked any American voter, they would have said they believe in capitalism, but still need government to do X, Y, and Z. This, of course, is highly inconsistent. If capitalism works, it should be capable of performing X, Y, and Z.
Moreover, the rules of a mixed economy are arbitrary at best. Somebody’s determination of what should be within the purview of government and what should be within the purview of the private sector is not based on economic theory or moral principal, but rather, personal preference and self-interest.
Come to think of it, the only two ideologies that are internally consistent are pure laissez-faire capitalism and pure Nazi fascism. Communism (“workers’ revolution and totalitarian government”) and mixed economies (“free enterprise and government”) make no sense at all.
distortions created by govt intervention lead to social problem for labor. state-socialism is not really socialism- its soothing angry mexicans because they cant work legally (because of govt intervention).
non-statist socialism. i dont wanna get into semantics here, for the purposes of our discussion i use the word state-socialism to not offend left-libertarians.
what we call state-socialism is really economic interventionism aimed at supposedly soothing social problems. persoanlly there is no difference between that and bread and circuses
most socialist theoreticians assert that they can’t even if they wanted to. then again they assert that without the state to protect property capitalists would have no chance. to be fair, when talking about such a scenario of competition they are talking of competing in the present world market
Well any mixed economy requires the state to exist, which state-socialism, state-capitalism, etc. all fall under, inevitably, due to black markets.
Even under state-socialism, you still had a black “capitalist” market (such as under the Soviet Union, when people were starving & a certain portion turned to counter-economics to fight the suffering of socialism / leninism / etc.) that arose because individuals desired and/or required such to survive.
IMO, you might as well view what little (in proportion to amount of the state-capitalistic and/or corporatist activity) legitimate, non-coercive & voluntary capitalistic activity as a black market, 20th century on forward. The very thought of free-markets is essentially criminal to most people’s conceptions that the state represents the best model of survivalism.
I’m not sure what a better umbrella term would be best for any economic system that has the “state” prefix, or could require the prefix. Perhaps statist economy? Interventionist economies, while an excellent description, sounds a little esoteric & long, though.
this is because state is falsely claimed to be the people. hence state-owns things- people own things.
thats why the soviets didnt understand that the workers didnt own squat. to be fair, yugoslavia was claimed to be socialistic to a degree because of a worker-owned factories. but what they had was worker’s managment, not ownership. and even the managment aspect is highly questionable