Cuba? no they can't, they are stuck with the old cadillacs and sedans, which they had in the 1950's. Which I think is quite cool.

While, China probably makes lots of cars anyway, which they can buy. Although most can't afford them still

Fascism was sold as the "third way" between communism and capitalism ...

If you evaluate most Fascist states they end up being (essentially)  militaristic, sometimes rascist, form of socialism.

Read again my post, writing in an iPad is a pain in the ass in this forum. The embargo doesn't affects european companies, or companies from Canada, or chinese companies. It only limits companies from USA, and you can even use a third company from another country to sell your products there. Believe me, I used to work for a Spanish construction company that built an airport in Cuba, and sold them equipment that wasn't supposed to be sold there. The problem with the cars in Cuba is that you can't buy a car if you don't have money, and there almost anyone can afford even the cheapest ones.

You need to go to Cuba and see the extreme poverty, then I'm sure you would have another oppinion on communism.

Pretty much every economy in the world is a mixed economy nowadays (yes, even America). So all this dick waving for nothing.

If you have things like pensions, medicare, welfare, public police, public schools, public roads, public sanitation, public parks, that is not a purely capitalistic society. That is (gasp!) socialism.

Even in the "Western world" context, America is actually the minority. Canada/Germany/UK/Denmark/Norway/Sweden/Finland, etc. have public healthcare to boot.

Every country in the world is socialist to a certain degree.

The capitalists "won" in the sense that McDonalds in now on the street corner of China and Russia. Hurrah. Now Americans are crying that they can't compete with China ... well you can't have it both ways. This is what "free market" means.

The current public school system is a complete failure though! You must be able to see that. What would you think about privatized schools...but a voucher system and parents can pick the school their kid goes to? That has worked well in test areas, I remember hearing about it being a huge success in parts of Washington DC. 

And I'll grant you that emergency services should remain public. I was only arguing that they could work privately. Police, fire, and ambulance services should remain public. Jails should be contracted out privately I think though. So still public dollars, but done more efficiently as they are private.

And lastly healthcare I STRONGLY disagree that it should be universal. How is it fair that regular people have to pay for the people who are 100 pounds overweight and smoke/drink excessively? Here is a really good comparison on the pros and cons of universal healthcare: http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm and IMO the cons WAY outweigh the pros (especially #6, #9 and #14 if you do check that link out)

Wait what? You must be confusing real capitalism with what we have now that some people seem to think is capitalism. 

Real capitalism (free markets) like I would love to see is the exact opposite of fascism. 

Considering our politicians are controlled by lobbyist and the government has intervened heavily in business we might as well call ourselves fascist.  The government is owned by businesses not people, and corporations don't count as people in my book.

The issue with communism is that it's impossible to actually make work. It's a nobel concept: making everything publically owned, putting power into the hands of the workers, etc. But in practice, all it's really lead to is dictatorships. Everyone got a job in these communist societies, yes, but they were all low paying jobs. Everything was done incredibly inefficiently. People in the government gave themselves perks while forcing the rest of the population to live in slums.

An ideal economic system, in my opinion, is a mix of capitalism and socialism. Free markets are a great thing that lead to economic prosperity and innovation. At the same time, free markets can be their own worst enemy, has has been proven time and time again in our nation's past, perhaps most notably in the 1920s and the 2000s, when lack of regulation lead to unsustainable bubbles and economic collapse.

We need social programs to take care of the downtrodden, disabled and old. People that fall through the cracks of capitalism. People incapable of supporting themselves either due to an economic down turn or because they simply can't find a job. I find the demonizing of people who use food stamps or take welfare to be sick, especially in a day and age with chronic unemployment, where millions can't find work through no fault of their own.

Only on a socialist society will we find publically built roads, public health care, public housing, public education, social security and welfare. These sorts of programs need to be stepped up in the US, because frankly they aren't enough. Too often, the unemployed fall into an endless cycle. They need a job. They can't afford a shelter, or good clean clothes, because they don't have a job. But they need a home and clean clothes in order to make themselves look presentable so that they can apply for that job. And thus the cycle goes on.

Obviously there are issues with social programs, but this notion that we will somehow create a society if "dependence" is right wing fiction of the highest order. Most Americans have aspirations to live a greater life then one capable of being lived on in social programs. They want to have money to buy things beyond the necessities. I find it odd that anyone would think so lowly of the American people that if you give people the basic things they need to live, like healthcare, shelter, and food, that they will then have NO motivation to work.

Anyway, that's my position. We have a right to a free market. But everyone also has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as all the tools they need in order to pursue that, such as healthcare, food and shelter.

I heard the US education system was bad but what I mean is that if it has to be private, it should not cost money (Up to 16/ 17 years old at least) to go there. Education is a right, not a privilege. As, people can't afford private schools generally. I guess as a British person, I see it differently. It seems inevitable to talk about the USA in some way.

But, I don't think Jail should be private as it should not be run for profit, I've heard it's alot worse in private jails than state owned ones (not like it matters for criminals anyway).

Finally, I never said that healthcare should be universal, I said it shouldn't be fully private. it's not fair for those who really need healthcare, but can't afford it. I think the USA should have a healthcare service similiar to the NHS in the UK, for those who can't really afford insurance alongside private healthcare for those who can afford it. A mixed system is better 

In most countries with universal healthcare alcohol and cigarettes are taxed heavily plus the unhealthy pay tax too, it all works out. The US system is by far the least efficient compared to other industrialised countries.

Also you may be a hardcore free market lover but don't forget the trillions the US has spent on R&D at it's top universities, the Pentagon, NASA etc all of which produced the high technology the filtered into the private sector that you enjoy today (the internet was a Cold War Pentagon project for example). That wasn't the free market working there but rather taxpayer funded state capitalism. Taxpayers pay for the initial risk, Corporations rake in the profit