No question unfettered capitalism can be a horror. We have seen some examples of that in both England and the U.S. in the past. But unfettered bureaucracy can be just as bad, if not worse because of the greater power that bureaucrats can accumulate. Has there ever been a state-owned system that has not become totally corrupt with time? Has a state-owned system ever delivered the growth in average standard of living that private capital enterprise has done?
Capitalism gets a bad name because of the inequality of wealth, but one must recognize that is an essential feature. There will always be a few who prefer, or think they prefer, a lower standard of living so long as no one else is living better. They are the ones who comprise the activists against capitalism.
Obviously there is a need to establish rules to prevent the excesses of capitalism and help distribute the economic pie as broadly as possible. This means the citizenry must vote for its position. In most democratic states it has the political power, but all too often it exhibits an apathy when things are going tolerably well. Thus it largely deserves what it gets.
Bottom line, I'll take state-managed capitalism over state ownership of business any time.
William F. Hummel http://www.concentric.net/~wfhummel/