NationStates Jolt Archive

Nations of the world, I come to you with a proposal to ban capitalism. Capitalism has proven itself to be an unnecessary evil, and as such should be banned. Not only is capitalism hazardous on a domestic scale, it is also hazardous on an international scale. In lieu of this inefficient system, socialism should be instituted. Capitalism supports greed, ignorance, and poverty.

Capitalism supports greed by allowing private enterprise to control a significant portion of the economy. Once private enterprise is given this kind of power, corporation develop, then Enron scenarios occur, and thousands are rooked and in despair. As you can see, the only way to prevent such a grim occurence is to ban the system in all its entirety. Socialism would prevent such an occurence, by banning private enterprise. The government then controlls the domestic economy, insuring its stability. Once this has happened, not only is the economy secure, there is a more elaborate employment field, and despair is dissipated.

Capitalism supports ignorance by slashing public education funding. Once you reduce public education, a large portion of the populace is ignorant, resulting in an unstable economic future for your nation. With a socialist government, however, education is prized, and a large percentage of tax money is used to enrich the system. Once you spend money on education (instead of needless tax cuts, or other such things) you are thereby insuring the economic prosperity of your nation for years to come.

Capitalism supports poverty, by ostracizing those in desparation, and failing to supply adequate benefits to a disadvantaged populace. In a socialized state proper housing, food, and jobs are given to all that are in need. Health care is also given philanthropically to those in need. On the contrary, in a capitalist system, many in need of health care die because of a lack of medical attention, or become financially destroyed paying for health care.

You might wonder why capitalism is detrimental on an international scale? I shall put this query to rest. Capitalism encourages mindless imperialism (Iraq ring any bells?), as such alienating the country in question. Once diplomatic ties have been severed, morale is substantially reduced, leaving civil unrest in its wake.

In summary, socialism is an enlightened, intelligent form of government. On the contrary, capitalism is unnecessary, primitive, and ill-intentioned. If you wish to live in a world devoid of the distopian garbage I have just described, ban capitalism, and forever enjoy the prosperity socialism brings.

*If someone could officially submit this propossal, I would be obliged. I cannot submit the propossal due to a lack of authority.

Capitalism is great. =) Well, at least I think so . . . meritocracy and all. I think however most people prefer socialism because they are either lazy, dependent on government, or aren't ambitious. Nothing wrong with that, people like that tend to be laid back and just wanna have fun.

However if you want to make lots of money, no other system allows it other than capitalism . . . and that's why I support it. =)

I agree. So does Berkman:

"When the highwayman holds his gun to your head, you turn your valuables over to him. You 'consent' all right, but you do so because you cannot help yourself, because you are compelled by his gun.

Are you not compelled to work for an employer? Your need compels you, just as the highwayman's gun. You must live, and so must your wife and children. You can't work for yourself, under the capitalist industrial system you must work for an employer. The factories, machinery, and tools belong to the employing class, so you must hire yourself out to that class in order to work and live. Whatever you work at, whoever your employer may be, it always comes to the same: you must work for him . You can't help yourself You are compelled."

---------------------------
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Capitalism is great. =) Well, at least I think so . . . meritocracy and all. I think however most people prefer socialism because they are either lazy, dependent on government, or aren't ambitious. Nothing wrong with that, people like that tend to be laid back and just wanna have fun.

However if you want to make lots of money, no other system allows it other than capitalism . . . and that's why I support it. =)

Here is another take on the socialists are lazy arguement:

Capitalism rewards short-term policies. You find a coal deposit. You mine it and sell it. The people you sell it to, burn it. You don't care, you've made your buck. You die before the pollution from the coal you sold kills your children.

The same can just as easily happen in a socialist government, except that there is a greater emphasis on long-term social development, because instead of planning for the life span of an entrepreneur or even a corporation, a socialist government is planning for the infinite continuation of a society.

The problem even in a socialist government, like the Confederation of Mikitivity's, there are lazy people. In fact, I think the idea that socialism promotes laziness has a shade of truth. Some socialist nations have silly policies that state that everybody gets the same salary. The work done isn't equal, because you always find that one guy who comes in late, leaves early, and spends his day drinking spice tea.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both. I say this coming from a Socialist government, Mikitivity.

But cultural values and upbringing can really change things too. Since some of the ethnic groups in Mikitivity came from barren desert regions (this is where our Spice comes from), it was virtually impossible to survive alone. In fact, it still is dangerous to always think for yourself. As the Klatuu say, "Wealth makes people water fat. And the water fat become careless."

POSITION STATEMENT:
My government wants nothing to do with a UN statement on the better economic system. That is like arguing who has the better national animal or coming up with a word to explain the fact that two people share a bed.

10kMichael

Dunno if I'll come back to check this thread over more carefully later. I might. Kinda busy at the moment... anyway...

Ah, how silly debate can get when no one is willing to compromise. Socialism, communism, capitalism, most any system has fearsome problems in its most extreme manifestation. Moderation is frequently a path to success -- why not regulated capitalism or capitalistic socialism, just as an easy pair of examples?

Mikivity's scenario is solved by democratic government -- the people will not allow such a catastrophe. You might also do well to note that many economies with socialistic tendencies -- mainland China, India, the now-defunct USSR, most of Europe -- have far greater pollution problems than most capitalistic economies -- the USA, Taiwain, and Hong Kong, say. In my experience, this trend exists both historically and in the modern world.

As Alexander Pope once put it: "For forms of government let fools contest; Whate'er is best administer'd is best." Of course, that doesn't finish the argument; rather, it moves the argument into the subject of which government is most likely to be well operated.

All that said, I don't believe that the UN should force this issue on any member nation.

As Alexander Pope once put it: "For forms of government let fools contest; Whate'er is best administer'd is best." Of course, that doesn't finish the argument; rather, it moves the argument into the subject of which government is most likely to be well operated.


Actually that Pope quote is great! And you are completely right, we are trying to figure out which government is operated best.

I think the answer is: it depends, but moderation and diversity may win out.

Where a society is, i.e. its environment, can have a huge impact on what sorts of things will work and what sorts of things won't work. I'm thinking of societies that were able to settle down and farm vs. those that remained hunter / gatherers. When you farm, it is usually easier to prove whos tobacco leaf was harvested from whos property. The idea of ownership comes about. But when you are just zipping around the desert hunting for a spice deposit, you are less interested in making rules about who owns what. It is impossible to tell, besides, the spice may disappear! But the risk of worm sign is much greater in the desert, and in order to save your life, you want to work with people in a different fashion. Ownership is less important, but teamwork is more important.
10kMichael

Hi, I'm John Marat, let's share, our thoughts shall we? You see, you seem to be under the impression that if a state, any state, takes the means of production into its own hands, then you've created *makes quote marks with fingers* "socialism". Well, I'm afraid that you are entirely wrong! You've only changed the form of ownership of the emans of production, not the relations of the means of production, and my friend, the its the relations that count ok? Not only that, but which state would you mean? You see, if you mean that each state in the UN took over its own means of production then we would have giant units of capital competing on the world market! That's not socialism my friend, that's states turned into national companies competing for markets, you see? Now that's not stablity my friend, that just means that the companies(which are now the government) have direct control of the armies and weapons, if they don't get their way.

In all of this the agent of socialism *makes finger quotes again* the "working class, never had a say, okay?

So no, not now, not ever ever ever ever ever ever ever in a billion years will we ever ever ever ever give your proposal a second thought. We'd like you to remember this though:

The emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class itself

Okay? You've been great, I've been John Marat. Thanks for listening. ^_^

Capitalism is not perfect, but capitalism is here to stay because it does work in most cases. The UN will not pass a resolution to ban capitalism, simply based upon that fact that most nations practice it. After all, majority rules, and capitalism is the majority.

As a capitalist paradise we are not too keen on returning to a medieval lifestyle. Most people playing this game are enjoying the rewards of capitalism-nice homes, technology and free time with spare money. If you live in a country with a selfish dictator, incompetant government or some all pervasive belief system running things, then yes, you might think capitalism takes advantage, but I don't think it's the main reason you are unhappy (and you may be quite happy). Capitalism exploiting disadvantaged nations is a symptom, not the cause, the world isn't fair, if your country is in a mess, then someone will take advantage, capitalism or not, the nation should take the lead in sorting it out.

If I may have your attention for a moment: I will leave aside the arguments whether or not aboloshing capitalism is a good idea and simply ask, can capitalism be abololished by a UN resolution? Even if it were desirable to do so-- and it is not for such an act is a negation of Marxism, it is not possible. How can one 'ban capitalism' by decree?

Here is what you said:

Socialism would prevent such an occurence, by banning private enterprise. The government then controlls the domestic economy, insuring its stability. Once this has happened, not only is the economy secure, there is a more elaborate employment field, and despair is dissipated.

This is not socialism, this is state capitalism. It's that simple.


Not only that (and I'm aware that this is maybe stretching things a bit too far) it is a game mechanics proposal. You see, if the proposal became a passed resolution, in order to be a 'real' law then for all UN nations, the 'capitalizt' or 'capitalist paradise' catorgories would be have to be invalid. Now of course the game doesnt work that way and will not work that way. Thus, the propsoal cannot be accomplished in-game. You can't really even role play it because the catogries remain for all nations, UN or not. Now for most people, that's not a problem, they'll use this *taps head* and pretend. But I'd bet a few quid that someone will say 'hey, my nation is still capitalist (or coperate bordello, or one of the other right of centre ones) but the UN says its banned, what gives?'


Not only is it impossible but it is not a measure that will increase world stability. State capitalist nations will find themselves in ever increasing and intensive competion with non-UN private capitalist nations. War is the inevetable result. Furthermore it is a highly undemocratic decree. Such things cannot, and should not be decided over the heads of sovreign governments.

When the working classes of the world unite, then superceeding capitalism will be their project. It will never, and should never, be a law decreed by an elite clique of men and women in suits.

G.P. Punkachu, Chair Of The Supreme Soviet Of Albion.

In a socialist state, the people are essentially the government. As such, private enterprise is prohibited, delivering ownership to the governement. Once the government controlls the economy, the people control the economy. :D It is possible to ban capitalism. You simply ban private enterprise, and cultivate a government controlled domestic economy-baddabing!

The Peoples Republic of Universal Socialism is in agreement with the spirit of this proposal. However this proposal falls short of truely serving the will of the people. Not only should capitalism be banned, it should be stamped out by the boot of the revolutionary!

No longer need the decadent imperialist feast upon the toil of the proletariat! No more should the struggle of the masses be ignored by the capitalist aristicrats! Wage slavery is a crime! Let the people rise and devour their oppressors and let the tyrants blood fuel the fire of socialist revolution!


OOC:
that means yes I'll vote for this

Universal Socialism, you may be young, but you are wise. Hopefully our nations will establish friendly relations.

Ha ha ha... You ever lived in a real world communist or socialist country? You have any idea how it turns out in reality? Ever queued for toilet paper, only to find they don't have any? Ever gone into a bread shop without bread? Ever gone to buy milk to find there isn't any for sale? Every wiped your backside with a phone directory?

Tree hugging communist hippy. We'll keep capitalism thanks. My people like their toilet paper.

I think Alexander Berkman's quote sums up my opinion of capitalism. The economic system that Gigglealia is not real communism.

---------------------------
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Not only is capitalism hazardous on a domestic scale,

So is government. In the last hundred years, tt is estimated that 140 million people have been killed by their own government.

it is also hazardous on an international scale.

So is government. In the last hundred years, it is estimated that 110 million people have been killed by governments other than their own

In lieu of this inefficient system, socialism should be instituted.

Capitalism is the most efficient economic system known to man. It's the only system where things actually cost what people are willing to pay for them. I don't see what could be more efficient than that.

Capitalism supports greed,

And this is bad ... why?

ignorance,

Yet private schools routinely out-perform public schools that recieve MORE funding per student.

and poverty.

Yet capitalist countries are the richest in the world. There is only poverty in the relative sense. If there was one universal poverty line capitalist countries would have the lowest poverty rates.

Capitalism supports greed by allowing private enterprise to control a significant portion of the economy. Once private enterprise is given this kind of power, corporation develop,

Actually, no. Corporations only exist because they have government legal charters that shield their shareholders from legal liability.

then Enron scenarios occur, and thousands are rooked and in despair.

Once again, this is because of government policies that shield corporate shareholders from liability. Those would not exist in a capitalist system.

And even if you were true, "ooo a few hundred of people lost their savings in Enron..." that doesn't even compare to the MILLIONS that lose their savings in social security.

As you can see, the only way to prevent such a grim occurence is to ban the system in all its entirety. Socialism would prevent such an occurence, by banning private enterprise. The government then controlls the domestic economy, insuring its stability.

In other words, by creating a monopoly guaranteed by physical force. Just like the Mafia.

Once this has happened, not only is the economy secure, there is a more elaborate employment field, and despair is dissipated.

No. Government is the rule of force and fraud. Force and fraud is always inefficient. Historically, the only thing that government has been really good at is killing people.

Capitalism supports ignorance by slashing public education funding. Once you reduce public education, a large portion of the populace is ignorant, resulting in an unstable economic future for your nation.

Washington DC public schools recieve $11,000 per student per year. Yet they are among the worst in the country. My local Catholic school recieves $7,000 per student per year. Yet it has a 99% unviersity placement rate. Guess why? Becuase government IS monopolistic. And that makes it inefficient.

With a socialist government, however, education is prized, and a large percentage of tax money is used to enrich the system. Once you spend money on education (instead of needless tax cuts, or other such things) you are thereby insuring the economic prosperity of your nation for years to come.

Economic prosperity is absolutely worthless if oppressive taxes prevent people from enjoying it.

Capitalism supports poverty, by ostracizing those in desparation, and failing to supply adequate benefits to a disadvantaged populace. In a socialized state proper housing, food, and jobs are given to all that are in need.

It's called the freedom of assocation, a human right that exists outside of capitalism. In a socialized state, you would be paying $50,000 for a shack... only you don't see the cost because other people are paying for it... but there is only so much money around to steal. Remember that.

Health care is also given philanthropically to those in need. On the contrary, in a capitalist system, many in need of health care die because of a lack of medical attention, or become financially destroyed paying for health care.

Uh, no. The only reason healthcare in the US is so expensive is because of government intervention. Before the government provided health insurance, the cost of an appendisectromy was $300 and 85-90% of adults were covered. After the government began providing free health insurance to the poor, the cost of the same appendix procedure skyrocketed to $4,000 and the number of covered adults dropped to about 80%. That means that healthcare costs THIRTEEN times more after the government gets involved.

Or, you could have a Canada situation, and be forced to wait in line for six months to get cancer surgery.

You might wonder why capitalism is detrimental on an international scale? I shall put this query to rest. Capitalism encourages mindless imperialism (Iraq ring any bells?)

The War in Iraq can be blamed on neo-conservatism, a totally different ideology than capitalism.

, as such alienating the country in question. Once diplomatic ties have been severed, morale is substantially reduced, leaving civil unrest in its wake.

No two countries with a McDonald's chain have ever gone to war with each other.

In summary, socialism is an enlightened, intelligent form of government. On the contrary, capitalism is unnecessary, primitive, and ill-intentioned. If you wish to live in a world devoid of the distopian garbage I have just described, ban capitalism, and forever enjoy the prosperity socialism brings.

Socialism doesn't bring any prosperity ... China's economy grew more in THREE years of capitalism, from 1999 to 2002, than in almost THIRTY years of socialism, from 1949 to 1978. If you think socialism brings prosperity, go to Eastern Europe and see how prosperous they are.

*If someone could officially submit this propossal, I would be obliged. I cannot submit the propossal due to a lack of authority.

What a surprise :roll:

The real difference between government and business is that business's offer customer services that doesn't involve guns.

You see, in a business-less economy, there are no prices. Without prices, there is no way to determine what people want. Without knowing what people want, there is no way to determine what to produce. Which means, in practices, that all production and consumption decisions are made by ... Josef Stalin.

Another ridiculous proposal that undermines the UN even further.

You see, in a business-less economy, there are no prices. Without prices, there is no way to determine what people want. Without knowing what people want, there is no way to determine what to produce. Which means, in practices, that all production and consumption decisions are made by ... Josef Stalin.

Of course, simply telling what you need isn't possible.

So is government. In the last hundred years, tt is estimated that 140 million people have been killed by their own government.

So is government. In the last hundred years, it is estimated that 110 million people have been killed by governments other than their own

In other words, by creating a monopoly guaranteed by physical force. Just like the Mafia.

Rather anti-government. Unfortunately, government is necessary to keep workers from using of the means of production without paying capitalists a signifigant part of their labor.

---------------------------
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Nations of the world, I come to you with a proposal to ban capitalism. Capitalism has proven itself to be an unnecessary evil, and as such should be banned. Not only is capitalism hazardous on a domestic scale, it is also hazardous on an international scale. In lieu of this inefficient system, socialism should be instituted. Capitalism supports greed, ignorance, and poverty.

Capitalism supports greed by allowing private enterprise to control a significant portion of the economy. Once private enterprise is given this kind of power, corporation develop, then Enron scenarios occur, and thousands are rooked and in despair. As you can see, the only way to prevent such a grim occurence is to ban the system in all its entirety. Socialism would prevent such an occurence, by banning private enterprise. The government then controlls the domestic economy, insuring its stability. Once this has happened, not only is the economy secure, there is a more elaborate employment field, and despair is dissipated.

Capitalism supports ignorance by slashing public education funding. Once you reduce public education, a large portion of the populace is ignorant, resulting in an unstable economic future for your nation. With a socialist government, however, education is prized, and a large percentage of tax money is used to enrich the system. Once you spend money on education (instead of needless tax cuts, or other such things) you are thereby insuring the economic prosperity of your nation for years to come.

Capitalism supports poverty, by ostracizing those in desparation, and failing to supply adequate benefits to a disadvantaged populace. In a socialized state proper housing, food, and jobs are given to all that are in need. Health care is also given philanthropically to those in need. On the contrary, in a capitalist system, many in need of health care die because of a lack of medical attention, or become financially destroyed paying for health care.

You might wonder why capitalism is detrimental on an international scale? I shall put this query to rest. Capitalism encourages mindless imperialism (Iraq ring any bells?), as such alienating the country in question. Once diplomatic ties have been severed, morale is substantially reduced, leaving civil unrest in its wake.

In summary, socialism is an enlightened, intelligent form of government. On the contrary, capitalism is unnecessary, primitive, and ill-intentioned. If you wish to live in a world devoid of the distopian garbage I have just described, ban capitalism, and forever enjoy the prosperity socialism brings.

*If someone could officially submit this propossal, I would be obliged. I cannot submit the propossal due to a lack of authority.

I must say very well written, not like most new communist nations that threaten everyone.Paradiszia pledges it's support to you Rebeland, if you ever need a strong communist ally you may look to us.

-Dr.Ivan Yuri Ulrich, Chairman of the Communist Party of Paradiszia

Right, well I oppose the proposal partly because it's game mechanics, partly because it's going a bit far - I don't think that banning all private enterprise is necessarily the solution (ignore what my nation description says :lol: ), I go for a mixed system.

But in defence of a fairly anti-capitalist stance, I'd like to reply to TGM (looks like another of these extended debates, eh?)

So is government. In the last hundred years, tt is estimated that 140 million people have been killed by their own government....that 110 million people have been killed by governments other than their own

Modern liberal democracies generally haven't been responsible for the majority of these except when fighting countries that aren't modern liberal democracies. I think we can reach the point where we're both democratic enough and free enough from the patriotism catch which is often used to exploit citizens, that government can be almost purely benevolent. And what we have now still beats anarcho-capitalism etc hands down.

Capitalism is the most efficient economic system known to man. It's the only system where things actually cost what people are willing to pay for them. I don't see what could be more efficient than that.

Maybe it's efficient, but that's not the be-all and the end-all of the matter. The problem with your statement that things cost what people are willing to pay for them is twofold.

1. The way profit is distributed between various individuals involved in production and distribution is not always proportional to what each individual goes through to make the product. Witness the horrific treatment of workers making Nike shoes etc, compared to the tiny amount they are paid, despite the massive costs people pay for the trainers.
2. What people are willing to pay is not the same as what something is actually worth. Companies could offer products cheaper than the value of the labour involved by underpaying their workers (who cannot realistically choose to leave their jobs, as there is no place else to work in a lot of these areas)

Capitalism supports greed,

And this is bad ... why?

Because greed leads to exploitation, which leads to undue suffering for others.

ignorance,

Yet private schools routinely out-perform public schools that recieve MORE funding per student.

Again, efficiency is not the only aim. If all schools were private, there would emerge a market for the poor, which charged little but offered poor quality. A state education system at least offers a more acceptable minimum standard.

and poverty.

Yet capitalist countries are the richest in the world. There is only poverty in the relative sense. If there was one universal poverty line capitalist countries would have the lowest poverty rates.

Think that's more of a historical thing, because you probably do need capitalism to industrialise without outside help from more advanced nations. But a more advanced society, with a more compassionate spirit, could pull it off. What about the scandavian countries democratic socialist countries? Ok, they're not growing as fast, but their living standards aren't actually dropping. Progress needs to be balanced with compassion.

Capitalism supports greed by allowing private enterprise to control a significant portion of the economy. Once private enterprise is given this kind of power, corporation develop,

Actually, no. Corporations only exist because they have government legal charters that shield their shareholders from legal liability.

Wha? Sorry, not an economics speciality.

As you can see, the only way to prevent such a grim occurence is to ban the system in all its entirety. Socialism would prevent such an occurence, by banning private enterprise. The government then controlls the domestic economy, insuring its stability.

In other words, by creating a monopoly guaranteed by physical force. Just like the Mafia.

Well, I'm not for the nationalisation of all industries or the banning of private enterprise.

Once this has happened, not only is the economy secure, there is a more elaborate employment field, and despair is dissipated.

No. Government is the rule of force and fraud. Force and fraud is always inefficient. Historically, the only thing that government has been really good at is killing people.

Again, historically, perhaps, but I'd like to be more optimistic about the future.

Capitalism supports ignorance by slashing public education funding. Once you reduce public education, a large portion of the populace is ignorant, resulting in an unstable economic future for your nation.

Washington DC public schools recieve $11,000 per student per year. Yet they are among the worst in the country. My local Catholic school recieves $7,000 per student per year. Yet it has a 99% unviersity placement rate. Guess why? Becuase government IS monopolistic. And that makes it inefficient.

The point was not about efficiency, it was about basic standards - see above.

With a socialist government, however, education is prized, and a large percentage of tax money is used to enrich the system. Once you spend money on education (instead of needless tax cuts, or other such things) you are thereby insuring the economic prosperity of your nation for years to come.

Economic prosperity is absolutely worthless if oppressive taxes prevent people from enjoying it.

Economic prosperity is also worthless if the majority do not share in it.

Capitalism supports poverty, by ostracizing those in desparation, and failing to supply adequate benefits to a disadvantaged populace. In a socialized state proper housing, food, and jobs are given to all that are in need.

It's called the freedom of assocation, a human right that exists outside of capitalism. In a socialized state, you would be paying $50,000 for a shack... only you don't see the cost because other people are paying for it... but there is only so much money around to steal. Remember that.

Well, I don't know that the kind of compromise I'm advocating would reach such levels of inefficiency.

Rights and freedoms are not worthwhile if they are technically granted but realitically unuseable. A worker at the very bottom of the pile in some places doesn't have real choice. He could quit his job if he doesn't like the conditions, but the only alternatives are similar work only under a different boss, or unemployment and, without benefits and universal healthcare, perhaps starvation or death from disease - and nobody can exercise any rights if they're dead. Thus, certain freedoms must be partially sacrificed to ensure that all can enjoy the more basic freedoms.

Uh, no. The only reason healthcare in the US is so expensive is because of government intervention. Before the government provided health insurance, the cost of an appendisectromy was $300 and 85-90% of adults were covered. After the government began providing free health insurance to the poor, the cost of the same appendix procedure skyrocketed to $4,000 and the number of covered adults dropped to about 80%. That means that healthcare costs THIRTEEN times more after the government gets involved.

Or, you could have a Canada situation, and be forced to wait in line for six months to get cancer surgery.

Actually, studies have shown that the US healthcare system is less efficient than it's UK equivalent, and we have a universally free NHS (sorry, can't remember the study, I think East Hackney quoted it in another thread)

Socialism doesn't bring any prosperity ... China's economy grew more in THREE years of capitalism, from 1999 to 2002, than in almost THIRTY years of socialism, from 1949 to 1978. If you think socialism brings prosperity, go to Eastern Europe and see how prosperous they are.

Neither of the systems named are examples of the type of socialism I'd like to see. Both were oppressive in terms of political and personal freedoms, and in no way embodied the kind of benevolence that I want to see in an economic system.

Modern liberal democracies generally haven't been responsible for the majority of these except when fighting countries that aren't modern liberal democracies. I think we can reach the point where we're both democratic enough and free enough from the patriotism catch which is often used to exploit citizens, that government can be almost purely benevolent. And what we have now still beats anarcho-capitalism etc hands down.

Incorrect. India is a liberal democracy, and it has routinely massacred minority ethnic groups. Same with Russia. America, a well-established liberal democracy, is responsible for the fifth-most killings of any government. Though you would probably attribute that to in wartime.

The government can never be entirely beneficient because the essence of government IS force. That's what government is -- a monopoly on force.

And even if it is benevolent, I quote the liberal Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis: "Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect our liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest danger to liberty lies in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding."

1. The way profit is distributed between various individuals involved in production and distribution is not always proportional to what each individual goes through to make the product. Witness the horrific treatment of workers making Nike shoes etc, compared to the tiny amount they are paid, despite the massive costs people pay for the trainers.

Perhaps. But that's what people are willing to pay. There might only be a few good trainers, and you really want one. On the other hand, there are many, many workers building your shoes, and you don't really care if your shoe is built an hour earlier or later. The Labor Theory of Value is bovine waste. The value of a product (in this case your labor) is what your customers are willing to pay for it...

This isn't a bad thing, it establishes that workers and businesses are accountable to their customers, not to bureaucrats.

2. What people are willing to pay is not the same as what something is actually worth. Companies could offer products cheaper than the value of the labour involved by underpaying their workers (who cannot realistically choose to leave their jobs, as there is no place else to work in a lot of these areas)

No. Something is worth only as much as people say its worth. Material objects have no intrinsic value. The first motto of sales is "the customer is always right". Capitalism is the system where supply exists for demand. I think that's the fairest and best way to go.

Because greed leads to exploitation, which leads to undue suffering for others.

What do you define as exploitation?

Again, efficiency is not the only aim. If all schools were private, there would emerge a market for the poor, which charged little but offered poor quality. A state education system at least offers a more acceptable minimum standard.

At a tremendous cost. Even if you say a child's education is priceless, that's still a price -- just a very high one. In addition, there are many religious schools that I know of that cater EXCLUSIVELY to poor students and provide a good education.

Think that's more of a historical thing, because you probably do need capitalism to industrialise without outside help from more advanced nations. But a more advanced society, with a more compassionate spirit, could pull it off. What about the scandavian countries democratic socialist countries? Ok, they're not growing as fast, but their living standards aren't actually dropping. Progress needs to be balanced with compassion.

Their living standards aren't dropping, but they aren't increasing either.

Wha? Sorry, not an economics speciality.

It's really a question of law, not economics. When you sue a partnership or a propreitorship, all of the partners are legally sued. A corporation, however, operates under a government contract that protects its major shareholders (partners if you will) from the effects of such a lawsuit. In effect, this diminishes corporate responsibility. I'm not a legal speciality. Perhaps someone here could explain it better?

Well, I'm not for the nationalisation of all industries or the banning of private enterprise.

No, but Rebeland is.

No. Government is the rule of force and fraud. Force and fraud is always inefficient. Historically, the only thing that government has been really good at is killing people.

Again, historically, perhaps, but I'd like to be more optimistic about the future.[/quote]

Is there any reason to be? We have to remember that governments are not directly accountable to their customers, since their revenue is guaranteed.

The point was not about efficiency, it was about basic standards - see above.

Basic standards are raised through efficiency and accountability -- both of which government sorely lacks.

Economic prosperity is also worthless if the majority do not share in it.

The majority do share in it. 80% of Americans are middle-class.

Well, I don't know that the kind of compromise I'm advocating would reach such levels of inefficiency.

It was an exaggreation, but you have to acknowledge that government means higher prices for worse goods, since there is no direct b2c accountability.

Rights and freedoms are not worthwhile if they are technically granted but realitically unuseable. A worker at the very bottom of the pile in some places doesn't have real choice. He could quit his job if he doesn't like the conditions, but the only alternatives are similar work only under a different boss, or unemployment and, without benefits and universal healthcare, perhaps starvation or death from disease - and nobody can exercise any rights if they're dead. Thus, certain freedoms must be partially sacrificed to ensure that all can enjoy the more basic freedoms.

I support workers' freedom of association to form unions, such as the American Federation of Labor, which have been effective even without government help. However, the problem with allowing unionization is that unions are technically collusion. Therefore, it would be hypocritical to have anti-trust laws in a nation that permits worker unionization.

Actually, studies have shown that the US healthcare system is less efficient than it's UK equivalent, and we have a universally free NHS (sorry, can't remember the study, I think East Hackney quoted it in another thread)

You also have to take into account waiting lines, which are much longer in free-healthcare states than in the USA.

Neither of the systems named are examples of the type of socialism I'd like to see. Both were oppressive in terms of political and personal freedoms, and in no way embodied the kind of benevolence that I want to see in an economic system.

Refer to Brandeis above. Government, by definition, is the rule of force. It is an agency that claims a monopoly on force over a given geographical area. There is no way to make that truly benevolent.

Of course, simply telling what you need isn't possible.

What!? In a capitalist society, prices determine what people want and how much of it they want. It's called accountability.

Rather anti-government. Unfortunately, government is necessary to keep workers from using of the means of production without paying capitalists a signifigant part of their labor.

A product is only worth what a customer is willing to pay for it. That includes your labor. Sorry.

eland, if you ever need a strong communist ally you may look to us.

-Dr.Ivan Yuri Ulrich, Chairman of the Communist Party of Paradiszia

The Supreme Soviet of Albion Groans as one, and the Journalists Of The Sectarian Weekly trip over themselves in the rush to write anti Paradiszia articles.

we'd like to say this is the most foolish and misguided thing rebeland has ever posted. sadly, we cant, because it isnt, not by far. successive nations attempt to impose their style of goverment style on others, it will NEVER happen.

The free peoples of East Hackney take issue with some of the points raised earlier by Global Market.

Not only is capitalism hazardous on a domestic scale,

So is government. In the last hundred years, tt is estimated that 140 million people have been killed by their own government.

it is also hazardous on an international scale.

So is government. In the last hundred years, it is estimated that 110 million people have been killed by governments other than their own

True. But the second Gulf War, the First World War and - to an extent - the Second World War, along with the British imperial wars of the nineteenth century were the result of capitalism seeking to expand markets and protect trade by force. How would scrapping government tame capitalism's tendency towards violence? The problem is the influence of capitalism on government, not the essential nature of government.


Yet capitalist countries are the richest in the world. There is only poverty in the relative sense. If there was one universal poverty line capitalist countries would have the lowest poverty rates.

We should be very clear on what communism actually is. The USSR barely resembled Marx's vision of communism and most progressive thinkers would disavow it as a dictatorship. But, in any case, Russia - along with most other so-called "communist" countries - went straight from feudal peasantry to an attempt at socialism, which was not what was intended by Marx and Engels.

Communism is not an alternative to capitalism but the next step in the development of society. This means that nations have to go through capitalism to reach communism. I do not deny, and nor would any realistic socialist, that capitalism is responsible for tremendous advances in science, technology and industry. The purpose of communism is to take the wealth that capitalism brings - the social structures, infrastructure and industry - and run it more equitably and without the tremendous human cost.

But this all involves going through capitalism first. Most so-called "communist" countries never got to a really advanced stage of capitalism and so lacked the basics to set up communism - see in particular Russia, which was unable to feed its people before communism and had an almighty struggle under communism to rectify this state of affairs.

So to say that communism doesn't work because capitalist countries are richer really misses the point. Firstly, most of the "communist" countries referred to aren't and never were. Secondly, communists acknowledge the need to take advantage of capitalism's plus points in order to set up a communist society.

In other words, by creating a monopoly guaranteed by physical force. Just like the Mafia.

No. There's a fundamental point you're missing. Governments are democratic. This means that it is the right of the people to vote away certain of their own rights in exchange for other rights - for instance, judging that the "right" not to be taxed is insignificant compared to the right to be educated or the right not to die young thanks to a lack of access to public health care.

The War in Iraq can be blamed on neo-conservatism, a totally different ideology than capitalism.

That's specious. It's in the nature of capitalism to use any and all tools at its disposal to make profits, especially if there's no government to regulate its less ethical activities. Neoconservatism is the inevitable outcome of unfettered capitalism.

Socialism doesn't bring any prosperity ... China's economy grew more in THREE years of capitalism, from 1999 to 2002, than in almost THIRTY years of socialism, from 1949 to 1978. If you think socialism brings prosperity, go to Eastern Europe and see how prosperous they are.

Not true. Although, as I said, the eastern European states weren't communist in any meaningful way - one of the key attributes of communism is that it's democratic, and they weren't - they did share some of its concerns. Universal healthcare and free education, for instance. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, living standards in eastern Europe have dropped dramatically. Of the 10 nations worldwide that have experienced the worst fall in living standards in the last 10 years, I think 8 or 9 are former "communist" countries - I will dig out the appropriate study as soon as I can remember where I found it.
One characteristic of all these former "communist" states is a weak government and untamed capitalism running riot. We've seen the consequences of that and want no part of it.

Comrade Chomsky
Delegate for Foreign Affairs

Incorrect. India is a liberal democracy, and it has routinely massacred minority ethnic groups. Same with Russia. America, a well-established liberal democracy, is responsible for the fifth-most killings of any government. Though you would probably attribute that to in wartime.

Well, yes, war is a major factor in the USA's killings. I thought Russia's atrocities were when it wasn't a liberal democracy. And also, Russia still isn't exactly the epitome of a free democratic nation that I support - I mean there isn't even any real opposition to Putin in the next election. India, well India isn't that developed - I'm talking about liberal democracies in a stable, more developed situation, again giving one of the scandinavian socialist democracies as an example.

The government can never be entirely beneficient because the essence of government IS force. That's what government is -- a monopoly on force.

And even if it is benevolent, I quote the liberal Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis: "Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect our liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest danger to liberty lies in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding."

Surely that's a reason to be cautious and maintain democracy, rather than to drastically reduce and restrict government to the point where it barely exists?

Perhaps. But that's what people are willing to pay. There might only be a few good trainers, and you really want one. On the other hand, there are many, many workers building your shoes, and you don't really care if your shoe is built an hour earlier or later. The Labor Theory of Value is bovine waste. The value of a product (in this case your labor) is what your customers are willing to pay for it...

This isn't a bad thing, it establishes that workers and businesses are accountable to their customers, not to bureaucrats.

It also ensures that most such people are never going to be able to climb out of the appaling conditions the system has put them in, simply due to their birth in a poor family in a poor country.

No. Something is worth only as much as people say its worth. Material objects have no intrinsic value. The first motto of sales is "the customer is always right". Capitalism is the system where supply exists for demand. I think that's the fairest and best way to go.

A person's time and effort has intrinsic worth. The customer is not always right, because more often than not, the thought of the person who made the product doesn't come into the mind of the person buying it.

What do you define as exploitation?

When an employer pays wages which are disproportionately low compared to the labour involved and the worker has no real choice - quitting leads to abject poverty, and working for someone else yields the same situation.

At a tremendous cost. Even if you say a child's education is priceless, that's still a price -- just a very high one. In addition, there are many religious schools that I know of that cater EXCLUSIVELY to poor students and provide a good education.

What do religious schools have to do with it? What must be ensured, to my mind, is that everyone gets a decent minimum standard of education, and screw the cost. A market won't do that, as explained before.

Their living standards aren't dropping, but they aren't increasing either.

I should think they are increasing, just not as fast as America's. I think the best way to explain what I want is mathematically. We not ony need to ensure that the mean living standard keeps rising, but that standard deviation and range around that mean is restricted - in the interests of keeping everyone above a minimum, it is generally necessary to bring others down from above an excessive maximum.

The majority do share in it. 80% of Americans are middle-class.

What about the workers in Vietnam and Laos. Do they share in the prosperity of Nike and the like?

It was an exaggreation, but you have to acknowledge that government means higher prices for worse goods, since there is no direct b2c accountability. To some extent, yes there is some inefficiency. But this is worth it to have minimum standards.

You also have to take into account waiting lines, which are much longer in free-healthcare states than in the USA.

Unless of course you're one of the 40 million Americans who can't afford health insurance, in which case the waiting line is infinitely long, since you can;t get treatment at all. Universal healthcare does have its drawbacks, which is why private healthcare is also available. But it is society's obligation to help those who are suffering and are unable to help themselves, especially if the suffering is through little or no fault of their own.

Refer to Brandeis above. Government, by definition, is the rule of force. It is an agency that claims a monopoly on force over a given geographical area. There is no way to make that truly benevolent.

I don't have fully developed views on this right now, but have a look at some of this:

http://www.libdems.org.uk/documents/policies/Policy_Papers/LiberalDemocracy.pdf

This is from the leftist 3rd party in the UK, and I agree with a lot of the things it says. Specifically, look at the summary of core values pages 7-10. This seems to me a good argument, based on personal freedom, for not abolishing government and for instituting a welfare state.