Meh, after being on the internet for such a long time you just learn to tolerate it for the most part.

@Deleted User Do you want to tease out why you still defend capitalism, or should be leave it?

I do not defend capitalism at all, I believen a free market that is rid of the influences from the world and is modified so that monopolies cannot grow and cause the lives of the people to be controlled not by the state, but by the corporations they begin to live under.

The only thing I could compare it to somewhat is the US market in the 19th centuary after teddy roosevelt broke up the monopolies.

Corporate free market? Sounds like AnCap.

Hell no.

I believen a strong state that supports the hard working people that keep the country functioning, while also having a free market to provide resources to the people that are acquired through currency.

I believe that you may have misinturptired that or I did not word it properly.

Along with that, I also believe that the state has a very strong military, so it gives people not just an opportunity to earn money, but to defend their borders and to support the country in times of crisis.

It seems like you are just trying to take the best aspects of every idea and ignore the contradictions between them. When you say 'people are to be controlled', do you mean by the state or by corporations? Any kind of repression will not be sustainable. You do not have to believe me, I suppose. A lot of ideology is motivated by blind optimism.

What I meant was by the state.

So then there will be a tension between corporations and the state, the corporations will become powerful and try to control politics, which is what happens everywhere nowadays. How will this be prevented?

Let me elaborate on that.

What I meant was that I believed in in a strong state that supports the hard working population that keeps the country going, while also having a free market to distribute resources such as food and water, while having some luxuries provided by it. I also wanted the market modified so that monopolies cannot grow powerful enough to challenge the authority of the state and to begin manipulating the people within it.

(My wording and explanation has been shit recently)

So you mean to use the free market as a method of distribution only? And still have a strong state to prevent any hoarding of resources with individuals?

Not exclusively for distribution, the market can also provide luxuries that a person can buy, very similarly to the ones we have now.

In the early USSR, for example, Lenin allowed some free market activity, because the state was not yet competent in running resource distribution. However, what happens when there is a reason for the state to control labour more closely, for example, at times of war?

Elaborate on what you mean by "hoarding resources"?

Using resources and property as a leverage to control others. Like what Kulaks did.

Then in that case if they are using to leverage control, they would be shut down.

And in times when the state needs to control labor more intensely, they would begin programs that would probably begin programs and incentives to join into the work force in cases such as war, such as higher wages, war bonds, as well as mobiilizing the market to shift the majority of production to be sent to the military rather than the general population, so food stamps would begin to be issued in order to cut down on food waste that could be sent to the military, and to decrease costs of keeping their soldiers fit and ready for war, as well as having limits placed on what the population can acquire or use on specific items in order to cut down on waste of items, and to again, make it cheaper to send people to war.

What if the state cannot afford to pay its war labour higher wages?

Will they nationalise companies?

'Socialise'

Incentives cost lots of money, money which can be better spent.

Then they must find some other way to entice people into getting people to work in labor, let it be bonds that the government pays back later, or something different entirely.

And how will the government promises to make good on its bonds?

The more people are working the more money that should be generated, along with that at the end of the war the military will largely go down in costs so the government will no longer have to run any more programs that will take a large chunk out of the budget, with that the government *SHOULD* be able to make good on it's bonds.

Plus, with the soldiers returning from war the more money you can get from a very large amount of people coming back into the work force.

There's a pressure point here. The incentive of the government depends on its reputation to deliever on its promises. When the people lose confidence, there will be problems.

In that case if there is a threat that the population may no longer have any trust in the government's promises, then I believe there should be a *TEMPORARY* silence of freedom of speech, which is meant to reduce the possibility of the government becoming weak from fear.

Ignorance, truly is bliss.

I see this deteriorating into an socialist authoritarian state anyway.

The government repossess factories and weapons etc. that are working against its interests.

Selling out to foreign states etc.

Selling out to foreign countries?

I very much dislike the idea of selling out jobs to foreign countries just because it is cheaper.

Sure. If there is no confidence in ther government, companies are going to look elsewhere for support and capital.

If you put limits of profit, this will happen.

You have to build the wall (to keep them in).