Capitalist and Socialist Elements of a Competitive Market System

Certainly many who are accustomed to hearing media pundits and politicians pit capitalism against socialism will be reticent to acknowledge that elements of both economic systems have been at play in our competitive market system for most of the time that we have been a nation. This fact is neither readily acknowledged nor publicized simply because our “free press” is predominately owned by corporate moguls who fund our political campaigns - a circumstance solidified by the January 21, 2010 U.S. Supreme Court Decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This decision allows for even more corporate spending to insure the election of “corporate candidates” who will undoubtedly continue to allow unfettered corporate acquisition of media outlets. Thus - since you are unlikely to get the truth about anything from mainstream media - you “better recognize” and seek out and subscribe to blogs like mine.

Let me first of all acknowledge that I am neither a capitalist nor a socialist. I am an “inclusion-ist” - a hybrid form of the two. Additionally, I submit that both the American and Chinese competitive market systems are also hybrid, “inclusion-ist” systems. The only difference is that China’s economic system is basically socialist with capitalist elements and ours is basically capitalist with socialist elements. The mixture of capitalist and socialist elements in a competitive market society springs from the knowledge that both are incomplete, standing alone, to provide for the common welfare of an entire citizenry. America realized this long ago and China has come to the realization in the past few decades or so. So the REAL argument has never been one of capitalism versus socialism. The REAL issue has always been, “what is the proper mix of the two”.

Leave Senator Harry Reid Alone: His Comments WEREN'T Racist

The coverage of Sen. Harry Reid’s comments (from the book Game Change by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin) that then-candidate Barack Obama stood a good chance of being elected President because he is “light-skinned” and has “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one” is truly much ado about nothing - despite contrary viewpoint.

Fortunately, in a CNN interview, Dr. Boyce Watkins defends Sen. Reid and opines that he is NOT a racist. Unfortunately, he opines that his comments were. Similarly, in a Fox News interview, Rev. Al Sharpton offers that Sen. Reid’s statements pale in comparison to those of former Senator-turned-lobbyist Trent Lott, while contending that he was offended by Reid‘s words.

For those who don’t remember, in 2002, at a birthday party for noted segregationist/longtime Republican Senator Strom Thurmond, Lott said this:

“I want to say this about my state [Mississippi, which Lott represented]: When Strom Thurmond ran for president [in 1948, as a Dixiecrat], we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”

(CNN.com 12/09/2002)

What did Trent mean by the “other problems”? Well, it might help to recall that, according to the same CNN article, Strom Thurmond - then a self-avowed segregationist - was quoted during his 1948 presidential campaign as saying that,

"All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches."

And his Dixiecrat Party’s platform declared that,

"We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race."

Clearly, Lott’s praise of Thurmond - and obviously his Dixiecrat platform as a cure-all for “all these problems over the years” - are no comparison to Sen. Reid’s comments.