NationStates Jolt Archive

So what do you do with the existing military hardware?
Don't quibble. Any number of things could.

OK. How much time before the US invades your perfect society?
In 1993 the US invaded Somalia, a country with no government but with an armed population willing to defend themselves. American soldiers were dragged through the streets behind cars. By contrast, Iraq with a state military is putting up only a mild resistance.

There is no magic solution a govt can provide to the problem of US imperialism. A stateless society, where there is noone to violate the right to keep and bear arms, has as good if not a better chance than a society with a parasitic government.

Socialism is about trying to improve that, so progresive taxes are put on the rich instead of the poor.
actually there isn't a big difference between poor and rich in a socialist nation (there is a difference but not many if you look at bill gates an an african citizen)

sweden is social democratic not socialist
Piss off. I'm bored of arguing about definitions. You have contributed no knowledge to this discussion, only bickered about labels.

And would be better off without them. These countries are rich in proportion to how much economic freedom they have or once had. Where are Russia, China and North Korea on this list?
russia and china have introduces capitalism and are much worse off
and north korea isolated himselve thereby creating its downfall

1. thats america and america isn't socialism
2. no they take it from all people and give it to all people
please read the communist manifest
I read it. It made me ill. It was hateful and completely bogus economically speaking. Complete trash.

Piss off. I'm bored of arguing about definitions. You have contributed no knowledge to this discussion, only bickered about labels.
thats beceause the labels show someone's ideals
if you say, i'm an anarchist than everybody knows what you stand for

I read it. It made me ill. It was hateful and completely bogus economically speaking. Complete trash.
uhm, there's noting hatefull about it :rolleyes:

Let's take Russia.
Russia is now ultra-capitalist.
Do you know they were a superpower? What was the GDP then? What is the GDP now?
I'm not defending that system. Get that through your skull. Russia's big GDP was all military hardware and none on feeding and cloathing the people. It was a slave pen and died of exhaustion.

thats beceause the labels show someone's ideals
if you say, i'm an anarchist than everybody knows what you stand for
Except you and Psylos, apparantly.

russia and china have introduces capitalism and are much worse off
and north korea isolated himselve thereby creating its downfall
You are unbelievably ignorant. I've had enough of this. Only you can cure your ignorance. Goodbye, idiot socialists.

You are unbelievably ignorant. I've had enough of this. Only you can cure your ignorance. Goodbye, idiot socialists.
its not ignorance, you just cant denie that russia and china are much worse off...

Except you and Psylos, apparantly.
no, i know what every term means
but saying that social democracy is socialism is a wrong term

Don't quibble. Any number of things could.


In 1993 the US invaded Somalia, a country with no government but with an armed population willing to defend themselves. American soldiers were dragged through the streets behind cars. By contrast, Iraq with a state military is putting up only a mild resistance.

There is no magic solution a govt can provide to the problem of US imperialism. A stateless society, where there is noone to violate the right to keep and bear arms, has as good if not a better chance than a society with a parasitic government.They didn't invade the USSR though.
And Somalia may have escaped the americans, they are crippled by the islamic fundamentalists.
This is the real world.

I'm not defending that system. Get that through your skull. Russia's big GDP was all military hardware and none on feeding and cloathing the people. It was a slave pen and died of exhaustion.You are.
If you say you are defending the private ownership of the capital, you are defending capitalism.
Now you may defend the free market at the same time, but you're still defending capitalism.
I agree with you that the free market is a good thing. I don't agree with the private ownership part.

You are unbelievably ignorant. I've had enough of this. Only you can cure your ignorance. Goodbye, idiot socialists.You didn't need to post insults. If you are bored, just leave.

For instance :
In luxembourg, the roads are free.
In France, you pay for the highway.


Roads aren't free anywhere. You pay taxes in your gas for the roads. However, for every highway there is an alternative public (free) route. Probably a bit longer and not in such good condition, but it is.

It makes a lot of sense to pay foe the highway. If you want, its some sort of luxury tax (which is a rather socialist thing)

Does anyone here actually live under a Socialist Government? I do and it's hell, the government controls everything, they even control the telephone company, or one of them at least.

Does anyone here actually live under a Socialist Government? I do and it's hell, the government controls everything, they even control the telephone company, or one of them at least.Where do you live?
I do as well and the telephone company was pretty good until it was privatized. Previously they were pioneers in many domains. They invented the minitel for instance.

Where do you live?
I do as well and the telephone company was pretty good until it was privatized. Previously they were pioneers in many domains. They invented the minitel for instance.


I live in Canada but my provincial government is socialist. Our old Premier, who was Socialist, was actually a decent leader. His replacements have become corrupt and missmanaged our balanced budgets. They also lied abou the opposition to get re-elected last fall. I was born and raised in a conservative province and as you may guess, I am a Conservative. I don't mind certain socialists but the ones ruling over me are just "incompitent" to be blunt.

Does anyone here actually live under a Socialist Government? I do and it's hell, the government controls everything, they even control the telephone company, or one of them at least.

the problem with the socialist governments we've seen so far (I mean the former comunist countries) is that, before being socialist, they were totalitarists.

There is no country in this world purely socialist or purely capitalist. Capitalism has evolved greatley in the last 150 years and it evoloved towards socialism. It may be possible that Marx was not wrong after all.

The truth is that Marx did a good analysis of the time he lived and he opened the eyes of the capitalists with respect to the conditions of the workers. Most europeans live in what is generally called "welfare state". This means a rather capitalist economy, but with substantial social assistance.

The new european democracies shifted from state controled economy to free economy. The metalities of the people are well behind, though. Governemnts tend to be socialist in this countries because people aren't doing so well. Problem is, they don't really afford to be socialist. More, the EU has and still is pressuring them to be more free market economies.

As for the general debate, socialism vs. capitalism, i think that we should rename it to socliasm vs. liberalism. Capitalism has been created by liberalism. To be frank, the modern world has been created by liberalism. I tend to agree that in socialism the overall happiness would be greater. However, I am not willing to sacrifice the individual happiness for that.

I am willing to make any step towards socialism, given that we will always be in a Pareto-efficient situation. This means that, after whatever each change we make, no one will be less happy and at least one individual is happier.

As for Psylos's comments on capital, I say they are a bit out of date. Capital is important, but those who have it are much more than they were 150 years ago.

Fo instance, my parents are both employees. However, they managed to buy another house. Say they sell this other house and get 30.000 euros. then they start a small shop or whatever bussiness and they have the possbility to make more money and extend. If you say that by selling a house they move from the status of exploited workers to that of cruel capitalist, the I guess the system is ok. Unlike 150 years ago you have what is called social mobility. You can go from worker to owner and back.

Many people do not succed in capitalism. Nor would they in socialism or any other society or economy. I'm not against hepling those people. After all, they didn't choose to be born. But I will always oppose helping this people at the expense of those who are succesful.

I live in Canada but my provincial government is socialist. Our old Premeir, who was Socialist, was actually a decent leader. His replacements have become corrupt and missmanaged our balanced budgets. They also lied abou the opposition to get re-elected last fall. I was born and raised in a conservative province and as you may guess, I am a Conservative. I don't mind certain socialists but the ones ruling over me are just "incompitent" to be blunt.
In my country it is the other way around. The conservatives currently in power are incompetent (Chirac).

As for Psylos's comments on capital, I say they are a bit out of date. Capital is important, but those who have it are much more than they were 150 years ago.You should check the situation in Angola and in Brazil.

You should check the situation in Angola and in Brazil.
I fear that Angola and Brazil are not relevant for the direction society is heading. They did about the same when half of europe was under socialism/communism and they would do the same if all of europe would be socialist.

They would be much better if left alone. This doesn't have to do with capitalism or socialism. I think that a country would solve its problems much better by itself than with the "help" and "advice" of the "international community"

the bottom line, to borrow a capitalist expression, is this: this system is fucked.

Uh, thats a capitalist expression? I thought it was just used by any angsty people who have no better phrases to sum up their emotion-based hatred of "the system." You know, if it was really a capitalist expression, it'd be copyrighted, and it's not. :P


you cannot claim capitailsm works when it leaves half the world in abject poverty (http://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/2000/english/20000328_reith.html):


Oh? Does that mean the entire world is capitalist and therefore, capitalism receives blame for anything bad? There are no socialist countries? Nobody is ever poor in a socialist country?

Capitalism works because it is not designed to give everybody wealth; only the OPPORTUNITY to create wealth.


you cannot claim capitalism works when it cannot even provide enough food for the world (http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/04/2.19.04/AAASPimentel.html).

Once again, blaming the worlds problems on capitalism. You are starting with the unproven assumption that capitalism causes all world evils and then judging capitalism on that basis. So naturally you think it doesnt work. But since when was capitalism designed to transcend all political and social issues and give free food to everyone in the world? Once again, it only includes the opportunity, and that opportunity can easily be crushed by political and social forces (including anticapitalists like yourself.)


you cannot claim capitalism works when it concentrates ninety percent of stock ownership, and thus the profits of those firms, into the hands of ten percent of the population (http://pnews.org/art/4art/DISparity.shtml).

Maybe only 90 percent of the stock is owned by 10 percent because only 10 percent has the will and skill and, yes, a bit of luck to invest that wisely? Could it be that 90 percent of the population just doesn't buy that much stock, even if they had the freedom to do so?

At any rate, capitalism is not designed to spread stock ownership to some fixed, 'fair' percent of the population. So you cannot discredit it that way either.


you cannot claim capitalism works when it squanders and profits off of water, the most basic of human needs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2943946.stm).

And I'm sure no non-capitalist EVER squandered water. Ever.

As for profiting; if people are willing to buy, theres a market. Thats just how it works. Maybe you should spend time teaching people to not spend their money on water if that bugs you so much, instead of ranting about the evils of capitalism here.


you cannot claim capitalism works when twenty nine thousand children die every day because it is not profitable to feed them (http://www.pwc.k12.nf.ca/cida/manifesto/devastation_loss.htm).

OK, so we should all become socialists where 29,000 children die every day because the government can't allocate and distribute food resources efficiently enough. Because no one EVER starved in a socialist country... EVER!


capitalism does not work. whatever you say about the alternatives presented, you cannot turn around and say that 'there is no alternative' and so capitalism is our only option. in any other aspect of our lives we would demand our leaders create new options, would demand we find a new way; only with the helplessness, the impotence, cultivated in our minds by our governments would we accept a world that murders through negligence and call it 'the best we can do.'

Whatever. Present me with an alternative then instead of making emotion-based moral arguments trying to get people to believe something is EVIL11!!omg.


why is it that capitalism, which prides itself on new inventions and innovations, is supported by people so unwilling to use those talents to solve inequality?

Not enough Christian selflessness. Or maybe we just agree that there are fundamental inequalities in humanity, that you can't quantify every person on earth and then, adjust their numbers so all values are exactly the same. It doesn't work like that, and it never will.


we are talking about a system where income distribution is so disparate that most people in the world, well over half, cannot afford decent housing, healthcare or education.

What system? Worldwide capitalism you mean, the capitalism that pervades in every corner of the globe and thus is responsible, kind of like God, for everything? Oh that one. And I suppose, before the spread of capitalism the entire world COULD afford decent housing, healthcare and education? Like, the medieval times. No poverty then. Or is feudalism capitalism?

why accept this? why beleive anyone who tells you this is the best we can do?

It's always better to believe the truth is why.


there is no perfect system, but there can be a more equitable system. what i see here, in those defending capitalism, is an unwillingness to admit the short comings of their chosen system, and thus an inability to fix those problems. would you say this to the mother of a child who died because they couldn't afford food? would you say this to the child who cannot go to school because their parents don't make enough money? would you dare justify the excess of the top one percent of the richest countries in the world when faced with the murderous poverty of the rest of the planet?

Yes, yes, and yes (respectively.) You're blaming capitalism for EVERYTHING. It is not designed to solve EVERYTHING. If a woman can't get a job because of racism or discrimination and therefore cant afford school for her kid, is that the fault of the Entire system of capitalism? Or just the racist pricks who don't hire her? Or her for not having hireable skills and having a child at the wrong time? Or the government? It's always easiest, though, isnt it, to just lash out at anyone who CAN afford things. Anyone who DID make money, who used their opportunities wisely and fortunately - they're to blame, and so is the system that gave them wealth! You would have such people robbed, and all to give to the unfortunate people so they can continue to choose to breed child after child, more dead weight in an already overpopulated world, as the FAIR solution to everything.

When you go to someones house, and they've ordered a pizza, do you immediately confiscate it and make sure everyone present gets an equal amount of it? What if they paid for the whole thing and only felt like giving some away? Would you sit there and berate them for causing all the evil in the world, slap their hideously selfish capitalist self and rant on about socialism?

If so, you're not invited for dinner, that's all I can say.

I fear that Angola and Brazil are not relevant for the direction society is heading. They did about the same when half of europe was under socialism/communism and they would do the same if all of europe would be socialist.

They would be much better if left alone. This doesn't have to do with capitalism or socialism. I think that a country would solve its problems much better by itself than with the "help" and "advice" of the "international community"But capitalism can't work without foreign slaves.

Whatever. Present me with an alternative then instead of making emotion-based moral arguments trying to get people to believe something is EVIL11!!omg.Read all his posts. He presented an alternative before making this one.

But capitalism can't work without foreign slaves.
Bullshit. All in all, evil capitalists pay 1$/day to workers that otherwise would not be paid at all. It's not OK, but it's better than nothing.

Oh right, socialism is FREE MARKET. Let's just CHANGE THE DEFINITIONS to make it fit why don't we?

People, if the government is handing out cash to anybody and taking half your limbs in taxes, it's not a free market. Period.

That said even the US isn't free market.

As far as needing capital to be free, that's stupid. That's like saying you need to be alive to be free, so any country with dead people is oppressive. If you're alive and entrepeneurial, you can get capital in this country. And besides, you don't need much capital to start a business - you're talking about starting corporations, but there are plenty of other business types and not all require much capital.

I totally agree. It's not that difficult to afford a hotdog cart or a chainsaw, but it seems most Americans would rather keep their job and spend that money on shiny things.

All right you too need to read the thread. I'm going to explain it one more time because your post was such ignorance it's appalling.
Show me non-corrupt capitalism for a start. Socialism can be corrupt, it is not inherently corrupt. Capitalism is structurally corrupt. Check out Russia. Tell me how good was the switch. The mafia is not really betterthan the socialists.


If we're talking about actual free-market capitalism, it is not inherently corrupt. Corruption comes from men with guns. In Russia, it's the mafia. In the US, it's federal agents. Unless you're talking about some sort of anarchistic gift-giving society, aka voluntary socialism, socialism requires men with guns. Such men, naturally valuing their own lives more than those of others, are themselves inherently corruptable. But even if they are as angels from heaven, their definition of fairness won't necessarily match that of others.


Indeed but those you cited are propaganda and false. Let's see.
Oh yeah what a freedom. You can have your island and tan on the beach all day snorting cocaïn. Oh wait. what about those who don't have a flat? Can they bake bread with it? NO! There is freedom for the few and slavery for the masses.
Cultural freedom unless you're black, arab, communist or socialist
Capitalism rewards the capital. All the other things you said is propaganda bullshit. Hard work isn't rewarded.


If you neglect your capital, it won't produce. Hard work most definately is rewarded, and so is innovation.


Yeah right, like McCarthy was educating the population about communism. Look at you, you sure sound very educated about socialism and not brain-washed at all. Note the sarcasm. Seriously you don't see it because you are brain-washed, but from here we can see how much the US relies on propaganda. Look at the war on terror bullshit. And they believe it...

Very nice. Someone disagrees with you and they must be brain-washed. Try not to be such an asshole.

Kinda,according to Marx to get to Socialism you have to have Communisim first.The main difference is that Communism is an economic system and,contrary to popular belief,has nothing to do with governing a country.

Except that you can't confiscate the private property without government.

Because we have a democracy. I can eject the people with the shiny badge.

Only when the majority agrees with you.

Except that you can't confiscate the private property without government.

that's just silly. what exactly is theft in your opinion then? or more relevant to this discussion, the expropriation of capital through a general strike?

however, the reverse is true - you cannot have private property (meaning ownership of more than you personally use, the stuff that you charge others rent to use) without government. otherwise there is no way for you to claim that some land is rightfully your's and not the people who live there. or that you should get to skim quite a bit of wealth off the top of that created by people working at a factory, even though you don't work there. these things rely on a set of government enforced monopolies. get rid of that enforcement and it becomes impossible to own private property - as opposed to individual possessions - or collect economic rents.

I can't keep up with this if there is a reply every 3 minutes. Especially since I only visit this once a day.

Yeah and Edison is capitalism. Sure.

That's pretty weak.

I'd like to know why you think reaping profits off of innovation that benefits mankind isn't capitalism. There actually were already light bulbs before Edison worked on them. He perfected them in a way so that they could be produced, sold, and usable in mass quantity, and he himself started the marketing for it. By the end of his lifetime he was worth 12 million. Not capitalism?

You really think that a factory worker who can be hired off the street and replaced just as fast is the one who made that wealth possible? That Edison and his researchers were 'exploiting' those workers?

Bullshit. All in all, evil capitalists pay 1$/day to workers that otherwise would not be paid at all. It's not OK, but it's better than nothing.
The thing is that in Africa, most of the plants and land are owned by americans and europeans (since the colonisation).
The de-colonisation did not happen. They went out but ensured a good capitalist satellite state was in place and they kept the ownership of the gold mines/oil reserves/diamonds.

What can the africans do?
1/ work for the europeans/americans for $1/day.
2/ expropriate the europeans/americans.

I totally agree. It's not that difficult to afford a hotdog cart or a chainsaw, but it seems most Americans would rather keep their job and spend that money on shiny things.
Unless you're paid $1/day.

If we're talking about actual free-market capitalism, it is not inherently corrupt. Corruption comes from men with guns. In Russia, it's the mafia. In the US, it's federal agents. Unless you're talking about some sort of anarchistic gift-giving society, aka voluntary socialism, socialism requires men with guns. Such men, naturally valuing their own lives more than those of others, are themselves inherently corruptable. But even if they are as angels from heaven, their definition of fairness won't necessarily match that of others.It is inherently corrupt since it is based on one class exploiting the other one.

If you neglect your capital, it won't produce. Hard work most definately is rewarded, and so is innovation.It is less rewarded than the capital. The capital produces wealth to be shared between the workers and the owners. Sometimes the owners are worker as well. They deserve their reward when they work, but they receive a reward from owning on top of that, at the expense of other workers.

Very nice. Someone disagrees with you and they must be brain-washed. Try not to be such an asshole.
No it is not that.
Someone can disagree with me and have a different opinion, so long as they know what they are talking about.
When you say that communists are stupid because Stalin killed one million, you clearly are brain-washed, just like when you say the jews are dangerous because one jew killed the christ.

Only when the majority agrees with you.Indeed, but that's life. I just can't impose my will on everybody because if I do, everybody will revolt, sooner or later.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Socialism doesn't work! Face it - the USSR tried it, didn't work *cough* corruption *cough* as did china, veitnam etc. germany nearly became socialist after the depression n look how that turned out (*jack boots stomping on commies*) !!

The left wing fails to take into account human nature i.e. wanting to control everyone else - Marx n all his theories mean squat so long as one person doesn't listen! surely u must c that!!!

I hardly ever pot on forums but this is serious!

send me a link in nationstates if u want to discuss it or don't understand what i've been ranting about lol

New Antium

That's pretty weak.

I'd like to know why you think reaping profits off of innovation that benefits mankind isn't capitalism. There actually were already light bulbs before Edison worked on them. He perfected them in a way so that they could be produced, sold, and usable in mass quantity, and he himself started the marketing for it. By the end of his lifetime he was worth 12 million. Not capitalism?

You really think that a factory worker who can be hired off the street and replaced just as fast is the one who made that wealth possible? That Edison and his researchers were 'exploiting' those workers?
Yes Edison was exploiting those workers.
Inovation deserves a reward, but so does working in a factory and yes the reward for inovation must be bigger. I'd say give him $20 million, $12 million is not enough. But let the people take the benefits of his inovation.
Had the copyright on the light bulb not existed, the light bulb would have spread much faster and other inovation would have happened much sooner.
Look at the computer industry. It really started to become a big industry when IBM forgot to patent the PC.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Socialism doesn't work! Face it - the USSR tried it, didn't work *cough* corruption *cough* as did china, veitnam etc. germany nearly became socialist after the depression n look how that turned out (*jack boots stomping on commies*) !!

The left wing fails to take into account human nature i.e. wanting to control everyone else - Marx n all his theories mean squat so long as one person doesn't listen! surely u must c that!!!

I hardly ever pot on forums but this is serious!

send me a link in nationstates if u want to discuss it or don't understand what i've been ranting about lol

New AntiumIt does in scandinavian countries.

Socialism always works, because as soon as a socialist country goes belly-up it's found not only not to be socialist, but never to have been socialist or to have even been thought of as socialist by REAL socialists.

If capitalism is your bloodstream, socialism is what a mosquito does to it. Once the blood is all gone, the socialism stops - and the mosquitos find someone else to harass.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Socialism doesn't work! Face it - the USSR tried it, didn't work *cough* corruption *cough* as did china, veitnam etc. germany nearly became socialist after the depression n look how that turned out (*jack boots stomping on commies*) !!

The left wing fails to take into account human nature i.e. wanting to control everyone else - Marx n all his theories mean squat so long as one person doesn't listen! surely u must c that!!!

I hardly ever pot on forums but this is serious!

send me a link in nationstates if u want to discuss it or don't understand what i've been ranting about lol

New Antium
and you pretend capitalism is the beat all fix all? it neither takes into account human nature. you think in capitalism people dont control people? you want to reference back to before FDR started making labor laws?

So you're telling me that Sweden contributed lots to the world until about fifty years ago, round about when it became socialist.

Sweden has contributed a lot since then too, just not super-innovations like the one previously mentioned. We have made very nice weapon & arms-things (like that radar-invisible boat the US bought) and we pay a shitload of money to the UN and so forth.

Sadly, i doubt there will be more weapon-innovations from Sweden in the near future (unless theres a big war, then we will be there making lots of money ;) )


And btw, Sweden isn't socialist, Sweden is capitalist with leftish tendencies.

Yes Edison was exploiting those workers.
Inovation deserves a reward, but so does working in a factory and yes the reward for inovation must be bigger. I'd say give him $20 million, $12 million is not enough. But let the people take the benefits of his inovation.
Had the copyright on the light bulb not existed, the light bulb would have spread much faster and other inovation would have happened much sooner.
Look at the computer industry. It really started to become a big industry when IBM forgot to patent the PC.

I like that response better than the first one I received.

But still, he's not exploiting his workers or the people. I'm with you all the way untill we get to "but let the people take the benefits of his innovation." I am assuming that by 'benefits' you mean the prosperity (wealth) his creation has generated. The people are free have as much of its benefit as they want, so long as they can pay for it. Far from exploiting the buyers, he made the light bulb affordable to them, dependable, and usable. Before him, the light bulbs were not trustworthy, and would have been extremley expensive for the common people to get ahold of. They already receive massive benefit by the fact that Edison was able to make a better, cheaper, bulb that they could actually have. If Edison is exploiting them by charging 10 cents for the light bulb- then releive those people of his 'exploitation' and let the common man try to invent his own light bulb for under 10 cents. If he can, all the power to him... maybe edison was exploiting him after all... but he can't, and edison wasn't.

For arguments sake, if a pre-edison bulb costed $1.00, and a post-edison bulb costed 10c (and I bet they would have been much more expensive than that), it has saved them all the work they would have had to do by 90c. That's labor and hours free for them to spend on other areas of their life now. Benefit has been received. He could have lowered the bulb's price to 1c (again I'm using made up numbers) at his own expense and take a loss- public is still benefitting then, but he would run himself out of business soon because he could not possibly exist for long taking a loss. Then the public wouldn't benefit for long. They're back to their $1.00 bulb, and no more benefit.

And also, if he never made that light bulb, the workers would not have had jobs with Edison to begin with. Isn't it clear that he, as is any innovater, is the SOURCE of the wealth and that the workers are just along for the ride? Suppose Edison comes accross a light-bulb building machine that builds bulbs twice as good and doesn't even need the workers any more. Now they don't have to worry about being 'exploited' because Edison isn't hiring them, he's using a machine and saving thousands of dollars while maintaining quality. Now he can REALLY lower his prices to 1 cent per bulb, without taking a loss.

An innovator can NOT be replaced the same as a worker off the street. He just can't. Our wealth depends upon innovation and man's mind, not on workers who just go through the motions AFTER its been created.

bump

I like that response better than the first one I received. It is the same response, only a little more verbose.

But still, he's not exploiting his workers or the people. I'm with you all the way untill we get to "but let the people take the benefits of his innovation." I am assuming that by 'benefits' you mean the prosperity (wealth) his creation has generated. The people are free have as much of its benefit as they want, so long as they can pay for it. Far from exploiting the buyers, he made the light bulb affordable to them, dependable, and usable. Before him, the light bulbs were not trustworthy, and would have been extremley expensive for the common people to get ahold of. They already receive massive benefit by the fact that Edison was able to make a better, cheaper, bulb that they could actually have. If Edison is exploiting them by charging 10 cents for the light bulb- then releive those people of his 'exploitation' and let the common man try to invent his own light bulb for under 10 cents. If he can, all the power to him... maybe edison was exploiting him after all... but he can't, and edison wasn't.

For arguments sake, if a pre-edison bulb costed $1.00, and a post-edison bulb costed 10c (and I bet they would have been much more expensive than that), it has saved them all the work they would have had to do by 90c. That's labor and hours free for them to spend on other areas of their life now. Benefit has been received. He could have lowered the bulb's price to 1c (again I'm using made up numbers) at his own expense and take a loss- public is still benefitting then, but he would run himself out of business soon because he could not possibly exist for long taking a loss. Then the public wouldn't benefit for long. They're back to their $1.00 bulb, and no more benefit.

And also, if he never made that light bulb, the workers would not have had jobs with Edison to begin with. Isn't it clear that he, as is any innovater, is the SOURCE of the wealth and that the workers are just along for the ride? Suppose Edison comes accross a light-bulb building machine that builds bulbs twice as good and doesn't even need the workers any more. Now they don't have to worry about being 'exploited' because Edison isn't hiring them, he's using a machine and saving thousands of dollars while maintaining quality. Now he can REALLY lower his prices to 1 cent per bulb, without taking a loss.

An innovator can NOT be replaced the same as a worker off the street. He just can't. Our wealth depends upon innovation and man's mind, not on workers who just go through the motions AFTER its been created.
OK let's talk about this.
Let say it costs now $1 and that he can reduce the cost to $.1
Why sell at $.1 or reduce cost to $.01?
He will sell the bulbs at $.5 and if he manages to reduce the cost to $.01, he will continue to sell at $.5.
Why, you ask? Well simple, because there is no competion, because he has the monopoly of his patent.
What I'm suggesting is to give him $20 million and let people sell the bulb at $.01 so it is spread among more people.
This is what communism is about for those who understand it.
Those who say it is about giving the same salary to everybody do not understand. Communism is more about efficiency than about equality. Communism is a win/win/win system.

It is the same response, only a little more verbose.

OK let's talk about this.
Let say it costs now $1 and that he can reduce the cost to $.1
Why sell at $.1 or reduce cost to $.01?
He will sell the bulbs at $.5 and if he manages to reduce the cost to $.01, he will continue to sell at $.5.
Why, you ask? Well simple, because there is no competion, because he has the monopoly of his patent.
What I'm suggesting is to give him $20 million and let people sell the bulb at $.01 so it is spread among more people.
This is what communism is about for those who understand it.
Those who say it is about giving the same salary to everybody do not understand. Communism is more about efficiency than about equality. Communism is a win/win/win system.

Efficiency? Do you really know that it's efficient to pay him $20 million? The biggest problem the soviets had was trying to decide how much something is worth. When the state controls every aspect of the economy, supply and demand no longer sets prices. In this case, you've got to decide how much to reward Edison, how much to pay the people who make the light bulbs, how many such people you need, how much to charge for the bulbs, and how many light bulbs to make. A proprietor is driven by profit motive to make the best decisions. Bureacrates lack such motivation, usually lack buisness sense, and have much tougher time simply because demand is much more difficult to measure in a controlled economy. If the proprietor fails to effectively manage his buisness, he's screwed and swiftly replaced by the next competitor. If the state fails, it's not replaced and the people get screwed.

Having said that, I'm not so sure I like patents. Generally, if an invention is truly innovative, the inventor will know how best to produce it and may make whatever effort he chooses to secure his trade secrets. However, if an inventor makes a poor producer or flat out sits on his patent, why should his competitors be punished? Still, invention ought have some reward, but I don't think patents, as done currently in the US are necessarily the best answer.

BTW, Edison was quite the patent whore.

Efficiency? Do you really know that it's efficient to pay him $20 million? The biggest problem the soviets had was trying to decide how much something is worth. When the state controls every aspect of the economy, supply and demand no longer sets prices. In this case, you've got to decide how much to reward Edison, how much to pay the people who make the light bulbs, how many such people you need, how much to charge for the bulbs, and how many light bulbs to make. A proprietor is driven by profit motive to make the best decisions. Bureacrates lack such motivation, usually lack buisness sense, and have much tougher time simply because demand is much more difficult to measure in a controlled economy. If the proprietor fails to effectively manage his buisness, he's screwed and swiftly replaced by the next competitor. If the state fails, it's not replaced and the people get screwed.And you think the unfree market is the best way to decide how much Edison deserve?
Why $12 milllion, why not $7 million, or $30 million?
I think democracy is the best way to decide. The unfree market can't decide that for us.

Having said that, I'm not so sure I like patents. Generally, if an invention is truly innovative, the inventor will know how best to produce it and may make whatever effort he chooses to secure his trade secrets. However, if an inventor makes a poor producer or flat out sits on his patent, why should his competitors be punished? Still, invention ought have some reward, but I don't think patents, as done currently in the US are necessarily the best answer.
Exactly. This system is fucked. We have to find something better.
This system is oligarchy : the few have the power and decide for the masses.
We should bring the power to the people because I'm almost 100% sure there is a better producer of bulbs among them than Edison was, although Edison was certainly the best inovator.

Let me se if I get it right: take the simple story of Bill Gates who worked in a garage 30 years ago. Are you saying this is just a nice story made up by evil capitalist to fool the suckers?

Bill Gates has more than a million times as much money as I. Are you saying he worked a million times harder than me? He has a billion times more money than the average worker in the third world. Are you saying that he worked a billion times harder than them?


Take the example of Ion Tiriac (maybe you don't no who he is) or the guys who started Yahoo or the guys who started Google and all those people who had some great ideas and become rich.

Take the example of any starving person i Zimbabwe. He might very well have to potential of inventing a cool search engine before the guys who made Google. However, due to the unfairness of capitalism, odds are that he well never as much as place a phonecall during his entire lifetime. I wouldn't say that he and the guys at Google had equal opportunity to become rich..

Stock is a commodity. When you buy stock you buy a part of what the company owns, so you don't just buy air.

What do you think happened when the dot-com bubble burst? That was when everybody found out that they had bought too much hot air. Stock represent potential value, not actual value.

Capitalism isn't perfect. Nor is socialism. But capitalism will always better address the human nature of fighting fore more (not in terms of greed, but in terms of wanting a better live).

It's not part of human nature to take from others to gain personal advantages. 10000 years ago people lived in stone age communistic communities. Everybody helped each other out, noone owned anything. At some point some people felt they had more right to something than everyone else. From then it went downhill.

I hope this argument doesn't fall in the category "Everyone who has more than a chicken's brain can see how evil capitalism is".

I see...

But capitalism will always better address the human nature of fighting fore more (not in terms of greed, but in terms of wanting a better live).

And you think the unfree market is the best way to decide how much Edison deserve?
Why $12 milllion, why not $7 million, or $30 million?
I think democracy is the best way to decide. The unfree market can't decide that for us.

I think Edison deserves exactly as much as he gets paid. If he really responded to people's needs, and they wanted his product enough to give up their valuable hard-earned dollars for them, THAT's the statement of how much his innovation was worth. Democracy? What do you think the people are saying through their purchase of his product? It's more direct a democracy than any sweeping and arbitrary generalization a government official could ever make.

And you haven't yet proven that Edison isn't capitalism at all. You even said that he was 'exploiting' the workers, which, I'm assuming, by your definition would make him a capitalist.

Blah blah blah, inequality, blah blah blah, unfair, blah blah blah, capitalism sucks, blah blah blah.

Tuxmenistan,

Bill Gates has a million times more money than you? Tough luck. Think it's unfair? Too bad. People were willing to do business with him, buy Microsoft products, and as a result he profited. That's how the world works regardless of economic systems.

The distribution of resources is NEVER going to be "equal." Ever. Some people have more, some people want more, some people don't. It was like that in the USSR, it's like that in the PRC, and it's like that everywhere else.

Life isn't fair. However, there are no laws preventing you from doing what Bill Gates achieved, only your own inventiveness, opportunism, planning and luck.

You have more money than the average worker in a third world country. Is that fair? Should someone take the money you have and give it to them? Do you request to be paid less, since you're obviously getting more money for less effort? Or do you just give to some charity now and then and think that absolves your part in the Evil System of Capitalism And Freedom?

I'm walking down the street. I find a penny. You are penniless. I keep the penny. Am I evil? I am now 100% more wealthy than you, and I didn't do any effort at all! How messed up is THAT! There should be a law, whenever a penny is found, it's immediately distributed among 6 billion people, in order to prevent inequality!

I think Edison deserves exactly as much as he gets paid. If he really responded to people's needs, and they wanted his product enough to give up their valuable hard-earned dollars for them, THAT's the statement of how much his innovation was worth. Democracy? What do you think the people are saying through their purchase of his product? It's more direct a democracy than any sweeping and arbitrary generalization a government official could ever make.No this is not democracy. It is oligarchy. Those with money have the mosy say. Those without have no say in this system.
Let's take the example of the man who invented the mouse. He did not patent it and made no money because he sucked at marketing. He helped many people though.
Here it is the same. Edison deserves money for his invention, not for his marketing abilities, which quite frankly were not the best and as I said before, someone with better marketing ablities would certainly have made a better job than edison at marketing the bulb he invented.
It is the same with Microsoft. They obviously make inferior products, but they sell it with windows because they have a monopoly. Do they deserve money for inventing internet explorer? Yes maybe, but Netscape invented the internet browser, they deserve money as well. The problem is that the monopoly is held by Microsoft and Microsoft leverages it to sell other inferior stuff. The same thing happened. Edison gained a monopoly on a light bulb system of production and leveraged it in order to sell bulbs. But what his inovation is worth and what his bulbs are worth is not the same thing. So by what right can he ban any manufacturer from producing superior bulbs at a smallest price?

And you haven't yet proven that Edison isn't capitalism at all. You even said that he was 'exploiting' the workers, which, I'm assuming, by your definition would make him a capitalist.
He was a capitalist, but not capitalism. My critic of capitalism does not apply to the individuals, but to the system.
Edison was honest and was just playing the game by the rules. He invented a great stuff and marketed it. I'm just saying this system is fucked or not effective enough because the private property is excluding many people from abundant resources.

Blah blah blah, inequality, blah blah blah, unfair, blah blah blah, capitalism sucks, blah blah blah.

Tuxmenistan,

Bill Gates has a million times more money than you? Tough luck. Think it's unfair? Too bad. People were willing to do business with him, buy Microsoft products, and as a result he profited. That's how the world works regardless of economic systems.

The distribution of resources is NEVER going to be "equal." Ever. Some people have more, some people want more, some people don't. It was like that in the USSR, it's like that in the PRC, and it's like that everywhere else.

Life isn't fair. However, there are no laws preventing you from doing what Bill Gates achieved, only your own inventiveness, opportunism, planning and luck.

You have more money than the average worker in a third world country. Is that fair? Should someone take the money you have and give it to them? Do you request to be paid less, since you're obviously getting more money for less effort? Or do you just give to some charity now and then and think that absolves your part in the Evil System of Capitalism And Freedom?

I'm walking down the street. I find a penny. You are penniless. I keep the penny. Am I evil? I am now 100% more wealthy than you, and I didn't do any effort at all! How messed up is THAT! There should be a law, whenever a penny is found, it's immediately distributed among 6 billion people, in order to prevent inequality!Capitalism and freedom? Down with this McCarthyism. Don't try to sell us capitalism with freedom please. I take freedom and I don't take capitalism.

What you are suggesting is an utopia : sharing your penny with 6 billion people doesn't make any sense. We are suggesting a real alternative : socialism.