NationStates Jolt Archive

In my experience, socialists are not the most fully rounded of people. Usually they are bitter at the world. They demand equality because they cannot ever accept that the world is an unequal place. They say that all humans are born equal - an immediate lie. All humans are not born equal - some of us are born more intelligent than others, some of us are born more physically strong than others, some are born more attractive than others. From the moment we are born, the one thing we are not is equal. The human nature does not favour equality - all successful societies have required a rulling class more privileged than those they rule. The USSR rapidly abadoned the doctrine of equality and quickly established their own ruling classes - but even then the USSR was a failure, lasting a mere 70 years before it turned itself back into a capitalist country. The Chinese have realised there is no hope in socialsim - thats why they have turned their economy into one run by capitalists. The most successful countries are those that are capitalist because of the strong ruling classes they present. The socialists moan that there is no such thing as equal opportunties in capitalism, that the only people who succeed are those who have money. This is far from true - in capitalism, you can succeed if you work hard and if you have the willpower to do so. It is no sin to be born in the dirt but its a terrible sin to want to remain there. In socialism, the talented on pushed to the pace of the untalented and when they do succeed they are no granted no reward for their work - a doctor who has spent years in dbet as a student will earn the same as a commoner cleaner who lazed about in his school days.

In my experience, socialists are not the most fully rounded of people. Usually they are bitter at the world. They demand equality because they cannot ever accept that the world is an unequal place. They say that all humans are born equal - an immediate lie. All humans are not born equal - some of us are born more intelligent than others, some of us are born more physically strong than others, some are born more attractive than others. From the moment we are born, the one thing we are not is equal. The human nature does not favour equality - all successful societies have required a rulling class more privileged than those they rule. The USSR rapidly abadoned the doctrine of equality and quickly established their own ruling classes - but even then the USSR was a failure, lasting a mere 70 years before it turned itself back into a capitalist country. The Chinese have realised there is no hope in socialsim - thats why they have turned their economy into one run by capitalists. The most successful countries are those that are capitalist because of the strong ruling classes they present. The socialists moan that there is no such thing as equal opportunties in capitalism, that the only people who succeed are those who have money. This is far from true - in capitalism, you can succeed if you work hard and if you have the willpower to do so. It is no sin to be born in the dirt but its a terrible sin to want to remain there. In socialism, the talented on pushed to the pace of the untalented and when they do succeed they are no granted no reward for their work - a doctor who has spent years in dbet as a student will earn the same as a commoner cleaner who lazed about in his school days.

Slightly simplistic and an untrue generalization about socialists, but you are on the right track.

First off, most socialist do not kid themselves and believe that people are born equal, they, however, think that people should be granted equal opportunity, and they believe that comes through government redistribution of wealth. Unfortunately they only see the corruption that goes on in corporations and ignore the fact that if the government controls corporations, the grasp of the powerful will only be strengthened.

I don't believe capitalism is perfect, but I do believe socialism is inherently flawed.

EQUAL IN RIGHTS, not equal as "everybody has the same size".
It's the first article of the human rights.

The world sucks. Get over it.

EQUAL IN RIGHTS, not equal as "everybody has the same size".
It's the first article of the human rights.
The UN Human Rights Thing you mean?

Because the same document also talks of a right to property.

The UN Human Rights Thing you mean?

Because the same document also talks of a right to property.It's about personal property (your pants, your car and your house), it doesn't talk about the oil fields in Iraq.

EQUAL IN RIGHTS, not equal as "everybody has the same size".
It's the first article of the human rights.

The first article of human rights is property rights, the rest are provided for and protected by property rights.

Mostly I think they're oily and unkempt, it's a mark of pride with them, and lets them identify each other in crowds. Then again... I don't know how they would tell that I wasn't one of them... maybe there's more to it that I'm just not seeing right now.

It's about personal property (your pants, your car and your house), it doesn't talk about the oil fields in Iraq.
What's the difference though? Your drawing a line that isn't there. All property is the same. Your car can be used to make money, hence it is capital. Your home can be used as the place where you run a home business, thus it is capital. Your logic is flawed.

Hell, I can use anything as capital. I can be a dee-jay with my CD player alarm clock, I can make modern art with Microsoft Paint, my Digital Camera and my Printer. I can emblazon my companies logo on my pants with a permanent marker, thus they are capital as well.

Everything is capital , and there is no line to distinguish it from anything else. Your rationale is really just the same I use with the difference between drugs and alcohol, and frankly that rationale is faulty.

What's the difference though? Your drawing a line that isn't there. All property is the same. Your car can be used to make money, hence it is capital. Your home can be used as the place where you run a home business, thus it is capital. Your logic is flawed.

Not all property is the same, there are two distinct classes. The first is property that is voluntarily respected, that is to say, you don't need a gun to protect it. Your pants, your car, and your house generally fall into this category. For the most part property based economies have some system by which all the members can reckognize personal property that is to be respected and problems are limited. The second class is property that requires force to create respect. In other words, the respect is not earned by the understanding that the property is the fruit of the person's labor, but rather is demanded at gunpoint. The oil fields in Iraq (terrible example as it is) fit this mold.

The first article of human rights is property rights, the rest are provided for and protected by property rights.
I was talking about the original one, not the one of the UN, anyway, the right to property does not mean you can own oil fields or the sun.

Basically, everyone should have the same opportunity to do well. People should be disallowed from university because they're not bright; not because they are poor.

What's the difference though? Your drawing a line that isn't there. All property is the same. Your car can be used to make money, hence it is capital. Your home can be used as the place where you run a home business, thus it is capital. Your logic is flawed.
The declaration of human rights says that everybody has a right to property. Pants is a property. If they have pants, they have property so their right is respected. If they own oil fields, they deny this right to everybody else.

Not all property is the same, there are two distinct classes. The first is property that is voluntarily respected, that is to say, you don't need a gun to protect it. Your pants, your car, and your house generally fall into this category. For the most part property based economies have some system by which all the members can reckognize personal property that is to be respected and problems are limited. The second class is property that requires force to create respect. In other words, the respect is not earned by the understanding that the property is the fruit of the person's labor, but rather is demanded at gunpoint. The oil fields in Iraq (terrible example as it is) fit this mold.
I'm saying that there isn't a distinction. All that "personal" property is is just a refined form of the second class of property. Everything is made with something else. There is no distinction beside non-existent mental lines.

The declaration of human rights says that everybody has a right to property. Pants is a property. If they have pants, they have property so their right is respected. If they own oil fields, they deny this right to everybody else.
So? If I own pants I'm denying the right to my pants to everyone else. I really don't see the distinction you're trying to make here.

In my experience, socialists are not the most fully rounded of people. Usually they are bitter at the world. They demand equality because they cannot ever accept that the world is an unequal place. They say that all humans are born equal - an immediate lie. All humans are not born equal - some of us are born more intelligent than others, some of us are born more physically strong than others, some are born more attractive than others. From the moment we are born, the one thing we are not is equal. The human nature does not favour equality - all successful societies have required a rulling class more privileged than those they rule. The USSR rapidly abadoned the doctrine of equality and quickly established their own ruling classes - but even then the USSR was a failure, lasting a mere 70 years before it turned itself back into a capitalist country. The Chinese have realised there is no hope in socialsim - thats why they have turned their economy into one run by capitalists. The most successful countries are those that are capitalist because of the strong ruling classes they present. The socialists moan that there is no such thing as equal opportunties in capitalism, that the only people who succeed are those who have money. This is far from true - in capitalism, you can succeed if you work hard and if you have the willpower to do so. It is no sin to be born in the dirt but its a terrible sin to want to remain there. In socialism, the talented on pushed to the pace of the untalented and when they do succeed they are no granted no reward for their work - a doctor who has spent years in dbet as a student will earn the same as a commoner cleaner who lazed about in his school days.

Id just like to say that most of this isnt what I consider Socialism. But then again I create my own meanings for things like that. Too tired to point out every point I dont agree with...just thought id voice my disagreement.

Basically, everyone should have the same opportunity to do well. People should be disallowed from university because they're not bright; not because they are poor.
And that's the way it is...if someone is bright enough they can surely get scholarships. Hell, even I got a big scholarship and I don't view myself as being at the top of any ladder.

Socialism is like junior communism. It will lead to many of the same things.
Socialism wants to give people freedom through restraint and servitude, very illogical.

Look at the USA. There, socialism is virtually nonexistent, yet people enjoy greater equality than most other nations. I'm not saying that there aren't class segregation and the likes in the US, but everyone have equal RIGHTS. people have the RIGHT to do things, even if they don't nessesarily have the opportunity to.

So, If I own pants I'm denying the right to my pants to everyone else. I really don't see the distinction you're trying to make here.
Nobody else need your pant. They're not my size and I don't like their looking.

Nobody else need your pant. They're not my size and I don't like their looking.
Nobody else needs my oil. They can use solar power, ethanol, steam, whatever.

Socialism is like junior communism. It will lead to many of the same things.
Socialism wants to give people freedom through restraint and servitude, very illogical.
Socialism is about restraining people from stealing your freedom. The jungle is not freedom.

Nobody else needs my oil. They can use solar power, ethanol, steam, whatever.
It's cheaper to use oil. So yes I want that oil.

It's cheaper to use oil. So yes I want that oil.
I see your logic now. What you're saying is "I want it, give it to me." You can say that about anything.

You're saying that property you'll respect varies on a case-by-case basis, so, under your logic:

Your pants are higher quality than mine, give them to me.

I see your logic now. What you're saying is "I want it, give it to me." You can say that about anything.

You're saying that property you'll respect varies on a case-by-case basis, so, under your logic:

Your pants are higher quality than mine, give them to me.It's not your size and I've made them with hard work.

As opposed to racist skinhead nationalists.. id much rather be socialist.

It's not your size and I've made them with hard work.
So, people put hard work into being able to get to the oil. Those wells are expensive after all.

Socialism is about restraining people from stealing your freedom.

And allowing the government to take them instead.

I'm saying that there isn't a distinction. All that "personal" property is is just a refined form of the second class of property. Everything is made with something else. There is no distinction beside non-existent mental lines.

The lines are mental (they certainly aren't an aspect of the objects themselves) but they definitely do exist. It is important that you understand that a person's perception of a set of objects is based on the words they use to describe those objects. When you see a sweater that your grandmother made and gave to your brother you say "that is his" but when he takes your toy truck, even though it is in his possession in the same way that the sweater is, you don't say "that is his" you say "that is mine." The distinction lies in the fact that "that is his" really means "that is rightfully[i/] his." The sweater is [i]rightfully your brother's, but the truck is rightfully yours, even though it is actually his, at least as long as he has it.

The first class of property, voluntarily respected property, is that which can be described by saying "that is rightfully ___" while the second class, property defended by respected force, is that which can be described by saying "this is not rightfully ___ but it is not worth it to fight to get it back because the losses due to his use of force would be more severe."

In my experience, socialists are not the most fully rounded of people. Usually they are bitter at the world. They demand equality because they cannot ever accept that the world is an unequal place. They say that all humans are born equal - an immediate lie. All humans are not born equal - some of us are born more intelligent than others, some of us are born more physically strong than others, some are born more attractive than others. From the moment we are born, the one thing we are not is equal. The human nature does not favour equality - all successful societies have required a rulling class more privileged than those they rule. The USSR rapidly abadoned the doctrine of equality and quickly established their own ruling classes - but even then the USSR was a failure, lasting a mere 70 years before it turned itself back into a capitalist country. The Chinese have realised there is no hope in socialsim - thats why they have turned their economy into one run by capitalists. The most successful countries are those that are capitalist because of the strong ruling classes they present. The socialists moan that there is no such thing as equal opportunties in capitalism, that the only people who succeed are those who have money. This is far from true - in capitalism, you can succeed if you work hard and if you have the willpower to do so. It is no sin to be born in the dirt but its a terrible sin to want to remain there. In socialism, the talented on pushed to the pace of the untalented and when they do succeed they are no granted no reward for their work - a doctor who has spent years in dbet as a student will earn the same as a commoner cleaner who lazed about in his school days.

Me and my family are socialists, but this does not apply to us. Socialism is about giving every man at least enough to live a normal life. It i not because you don't have cancer that someone else has to die because he does not have the money to receive treatment. Every man owes a lot to 'society' as a whole. Virtually noone made it on his own. From the moment you are born untill the moment you receive your first paycheck (and often longer) you are borrowing from others - your parents, the government, etc. I only find it normal that you then in return try to provide this service to others when you earn more than enough to lead a normal life. I don't say you are not allowed to earn more than average, but you have to think about others that don't have this luck.

An example: my dad earns a lot of money, and the more money you make in my country, the higher the percentage you have to pay for taxes, and it is allready high as we live in belgium. But still he pays more than 1000 euro a year extra by not claiming tax refunds just because we don't need the extra money.

About the doctors: In socialism (not communism, like your example), the doctor should not even have debts (i myself am going to spend 5-11 years at university and because my family is not poor, they pay almost 500 euro's a year. The rest is payed for by the government). But still the doctor's pay should be higher because of the years he could not make money while he was studying. It's also fair to make it even higher than that because he has to open a practise, doctor's work hard and we want to encourage talented people to become doctors. But his pay still has to be within certain boundaries, as in the end, every human being has the right to live a normal live.

The lines are mental (they certainly aren't an aspect of the objects themselves) but they definitely do exist. It is important that you understand that a person's perception of a set of objects is based on the words they use to describe those objects. When you see a sweater that your grandmother made and gave to your brother you say "that is his" but when he takes your toy truck, even though it is in his possession in the same way that the sweater is, you don't say "that is his" you say "that is mine." The distinction lies in the fact that "that is his" really means "that is rightfully[i/] his." The sweater is [i]rightfully your brother's, but the truck is rightfully yours, even though it is actually his, at least as long as he has it.

The first class of property, voluntarily respected property, is that which can be described by saying "that is rightfully ___" while the second class, property defended by respected force, is that which can be described by saying "this is not rightfully ___ but it is not worth it to fight to get it back because the losses due to his use of force would be more severe."

Like everything mental, the lines you are talking about don't exist. You shouldn't try to implement intangible mental concepts on the world. Espescially when a large proportion of the world may disagree with you.

Oh, Christ on a crutch. Isn't the point of NS that legal, economic and cultural policy are oblique to each other?

I find it doubly disturbing that self-proclaimed capitalists are incapable of distinguishing capital from consumption...

Like everything mental, the lines you are talking about don't exist. You shouldn't try to implement intangible mental concepts on the world. Espescially when a large proportion of the world may disagree with you.

That's quite a statement there... "everything mental does not exist." Boy am I glad I'm not interested in continuing the serious part of this discussion because you're way too far gone for me to even hope of reaching you.

Just because the lines are different for different people does not mean they do not exist. Everybody has a different understanding of everything, relativity is inescapable, but there are universal concepts, the specifics of which vary from person to person, but which reoccur by virtue of being inherent in the system of semantic thought. In other words, I'm right, you're wrong, and there is no hope of me ever explaining it to you.

Oh, Christ on a crutch. Isn't the point of NS that legal, economic and cultural policy are oblique to each other?

I find it doubly disturbing that self-proclaimed capitalists are incapable of distinguishing capital from consumption...
If you'd politely read what I said, it's that anything can be used as capital in some form or another, it just takes a little bit of creativity.

Socialism is a dream. An ideal. Inever works. I live in Norway. In Norway we have a socialist government, so I know what I'm talking about.
If you get ill, you have to wait in line. It doesn't matter if you have cholera and the people in front of you have the common cold. You still have to wait. Education and healthcare are both free. Sounds great? Hell no. I would gladly pay money for my education and healthcare, because doing so will ensure that there's a measure of QUALITY over the stuff I come across.

In communist nations, there is no such thing as servicing the customer. because in a communist state, you get the same paycheck no matter if you actually do your job or not. it's the same general feeling you have with socialism. The customer is just a problem to solve.

The government is in charge of everything. To afford it, we are heavily taxed. Over half our income is taken by the government. The government, however, get their priorities all wrong. The result is Norway. We don't haev roads, we just have a mass of holes to drive over. EVERYTHING is of low quality.

The children in school are forced to learn some absurd new dialect called "new norwegian" just because some bloke 150 or so years past wanted to unify our nation by giving us a language seperate from the danes, from whom we had just gotten our liberty. Now, you can't turn on a single one of the government-controlled TV-channels without hearing it. the people who speak it are clearly told to do so by their superiors, because you can hear they don't do it perfectly; they way they would, were they born with it.

You have to pay a tax to own a television set, a tax that gets proporsionally higher the more sets you own. As if this wasn't enough, the prices of things are also sky-high. This is because of all the taxes we have. There's a tax for just about everything. It's like being punished for existing.

As opposed to racist skinhead nationalists.. id much rather be socialist.
See? This is the mind of a blood-red left-winger. Completely black & white.

See? This is the mind of a blood-red left-winger. Completely black & white.

No, that's the mind of an idiot. There are a large number of idiot leftists, but don't confuse the two, cuz there are a bunch of idiots on the right too.

Look at the USA. There, socialism is virtually nonexistent, yet people enjoy greater equality than most other nations. I'm not saying that there aren't class segregation and the likes in the US, but everyone have equal RIGHTS. people have the RIGHT to do things, even if they don't nessesarily have the opportunity to.

Let's compare US rights to Belgian rights:

-The right to own guns:
In Belgian, people can own guns, but they have to get a license to get them, they need to be registrated and the use is restrained (belgium has a dense population, so it's not without danger for others to just go hunting). I must say i like this better than the US system where anyone can just walk into a shop and buy a gun.

-Gay marriage:
It allready exists over here.

-Legalisation of 'softdrugs':
It's still a bit hazy, but someone caught on the street carrying 5 grams of weed will just lose the 5 grams.

-Euthanasia:
If you are terminally ill and in a lot of pain, you can ask a doctor to kill you and end your suffering. (It's not that simple, i thought that at least 2 doctors need to examine the case and it will take a few days).

-patriot act and other anti-terrorism legislation:
With this legislation, anyone can 'disappear' and be held for life without a trial.
It probably won't happen to you now, but the fact that it is theoretically possible and legal is freightning at least.

-The right to healthcare: free healthcare.

I can't think of more differences between the rights of americans and belgians, but stating that americans have more rights than belgians (or europeans in general) will require something to back it up.

-The right to healthcare: free healthcare.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. "Free healthcare" is really "government funded healthcare" which is really "tax funded healthcare" which is really the same as normal healthcare, but without the benifits (and some of the problems) of a market system.

Socialism is a dream. An ideal. Inever works. I live in Norway. In Norway we have a socialist government, so I know what I'm talking about.
If you get ill, you have to wait in line. It doesn't matter if you have cholera and the people in front of you have the common cold. You still have to wait. Education and healthcare are both free. Sounds great? Hell no. I would gladly pay money for my education and healthcare, because doing so will ensure that there's a measure of QUALITY over the stuff I come across.

In communist nations, there is no such thing as servicing the customer. because in a communist state, you get the same paycheck no matter if you actually do your job or not. it's the same general feeling you have with socialism. The customer is just a problem to solve.

The government is in charge of everything. To afford it, we are heavily taxed. Over half our income is taken by the government. The government, however, get their priorities all wrong. The result is Norway. We don't haev roads, we just have a mass of holes to drive over. EVERYTHING is of low quality.

The children in school are forced to learn some absurd new dialect called "new norwegian" just because some bloke 150 or so years past wanted to unify our nation by giving us a language seperate from the danes, from whom we had just gotten our liberty. Now, you can't turn on a single one of the government-controlled TV-channels without hearing it. the people who speak it are clearly told to do so by their superiors, because you can hear they don't do it perfectly; they way they would, were they born with it.

You have to pay a tax to own a television set, a tax that gets proporsionally higher the more sets you own. As if this wasn't enough, the prices of things are also sky-high. This is because of all the taxes we have. There's a tax for just about everything. It's like being punished for existing.

I would agree with you, but that was all a load of crap. Sweden has the highest standard of living in the world. It has the highest tax rates of any democratic nation. it is also massively socially equal. People in Sweden like living there, on the whole, and people from outside move in because they see it as the closest thing to real equality.

Also, I dispute what you were saying about the same paycheck no matter if you work or not. It proves the kind of ignorance that goes around about the left by the right. Let me highlight Marxism in its original form:

It is not true that Russia was communist. It was state-controlled capitalist. Therefore, there was industry, there were owners and the were those that profitted. Communism, you only need look at the origins of the word really, is a system of economics, not government, in which things are owned and operated communially. For example, the government would not own industry, industry would be owned by all the workers. They would get a percentage share of the profits as their wage. Therefore, if they didn't work, the business wouldn't work and they would have no job. That would mean no fat bloke can take all the profits and pay the workers nothing. That doesn't necessarily mean everyone is paid the same, people are still paid for responsibility (even though there are less wage differences than there are now).

Also let me add that left wing nations, particularly those in Scandinavia, are far cleaner, more environmentally conscience, have smaller militaries and less obesity and general ill-health.

Furthermore, I live in Britain where we have a National Health Service. It's brilliant. Everyone gets cured and everyone can have an operation. True, there are large waiting lists, but the doctors are superb, the hospitals are generally clean and modern, and the majority of the population would much rather have it than be without it. Under private medical care, those who can't afford to pay the blaoted prices that the owners charge just die. They die. Is that better or worse than having to wait a month or two for your operation (hell, even a year or two)? The day we have a system like in America is the day I move out of this country.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. "Free healthcare" is really "government funded healthcare" which is really "tax funded healthcare" which is really the same as normal healthcare, but without the benifits (and some of the problems) of a market system.

I know it isn't 'free', but it just means that everyone has the possibility to receive the treatment they need. A country in which a significant portion of the population cannot afford the treatment they need is a country that does not look after all of it's inhabitants.

Oh, sure. You can extract petit capital from your car, pants, whatever. The point is that such abilities aren't really much of a critique of an attempt to socialize the means of production, unless you want to be the one insisting on a hard and fast line between capital and consumption. The socialist critique of capitalism isn't of a trabadour that uses his banjo to perform songs for paying audiences, it regards the extremely large means of production - the classic industrial aesthetic of mines, railways, etc., as well as ensuring that everyone has access to the more abstract forms of capital, like education.

If you want to argue that something in economics is not real because it only exists in our minds, then you've really gone off into the deep end.

I know it isn't 'free', but it just means that everyone has the possibility to receive the treatment they need. A country in which a significant portion of the population cannot afford the treatment they need is a country that does not look after all of it's inhabitants.

Did you know that Americans pay more for healthcare on average than any first world country with universal healthcare? The problem here in the U.S. isn't that not everybody can get coverage, it's the phenomenal amount of corruption and waste in the system. If we can get rid of those, and maybe make doctors start doing their jobs again instead of just costing a ton, then maybe universal healthcare would become practical.

If you want to argue that something in economics is not real because it only exists in our minds, then you've really gone off into the deep end.

That's what I said, but don't wear yourself out arguing with him, you'll never get anywhere. I see you're new around here (though you seem to be savvy enough) so take some friendly advice from someone who's been around here for a while, don't take anything to seriously, and don't bother yourself because the majority of people are idiots, just move on and try to find the tiny minority who actually understand half of what you're saying and talk to them instead.

Look at the USA. There, socialism is virtually nonexistent, yet people enjoy greater equality than most other nations. I'm not saying that there aren't class segregation and the likes in the US, but everyone have equal RIGHTS. people have the RIGHT to do things, even if they don't nessesarily have the opportunity to.

I can't believe you wrote that.

Greater equality than who, exactly? You mean South Africa? India? Than "most"? Oh dear. You've been watching too much American TV. America has very few rights actually. The right to do something is an undisputeable ability to do it - like in the UK everyone has a right to education. Ie we are forced to do it. American right-wingers say that Americans have the right to own property. I don't think so. Those with enough money have the PRIVELEGE to own property, property is not guaranteed to every single American! "People have the right to do things, even if they don't nessesarily have the opportunity to"....? What good is that? So it's ok to live in America because everybody has the right to get a business started and make millions, but hang on, most people can't do that because they may not be born intelligent, or be taught in a good school, or be able to go to college, or have the push from their parents. So, the fact that they have the RIGHT to do it makes it all better? Sigh.

Lets go back to probably the best period of American economic growth, the 1920's. 80% of all the wealth in the country was in the hands of the top 2%. Lets look at things now. 80% of all the wealth is in the hands of the top 10%. And you can bet your bottom dollar that out of that top 10%, most won't even be working. They will be retired and rich. Whilst the bottom 10% will be struggling away 9 to 5 every single working day for 40 years at least, working on an assembly line somewhere, or serving the till at McDonalds. America is where capitalism gets you. Sweden is where socialism gets you. I know which one I'd rather.

Oh, Christ on a crutch. Isn't the point of NS that legal, economic and cultural policy are oblique to each other?

I find it doubly disturbing that self-proclaimed capitalists are incapable of distinguishing capital from consumption...

There is very little distinction between capital and consumption. The power to control your own consumption rests in the capital you have. Socialists are keen on the idea that the only capital people should have is that of their own labor, and since labor can readily be replaced there in not much power at all in that.

Though I've been warned against argument, the greatest period of economic growth was in the middle part of the century, when we had the largest welfare state.

There is very little distinction between capital and consumption. The power to control your own consumption rests in the capital you have. Socialists are keen on the idea that the only capital people should have is that of their own labor, and since labor can readily be replaced there in not much power at all in that.

Yes, you would almost imagine that workers in such a situation would like to take the capital into their own hands...

Don't forget eating babies. It's in the nature of socialists to eat babies.

I know it isn't 'free', but it just means that everyone has the possibility to receive the treatment they need. A country in which a significant portion of the population cannot afford the treatment they need is a country that does not look after all of it's inhabitants.
Everyone has the possibility, because everyone pays. Even if they don't need it themselves! It's the same as paying a hospital-bill, just without the perks.

Everyone has the possibility, because everyone pays. Even if they don't need it themselves! It's the same as paying a hospital-bill, just without the perks.

Except some pay more than others. Because others have more money with which to pay it. Ergo, people who could not afford it previously now can. Ergo "lines," the same situation you'd have after capitalism has made everybody rich enought to afford healthcare. :gundge:

The first article of human rights is property rights, the rest are provided for and protected by property rights.

Which Declaration of Human Rights are you referring to? The UN Declaration of Human rights states:

Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 17
Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

The right to property is only one among many...and the right to own property does not allow you to interfere with the other human rights...ergo, you can not walk into a country, steal its resources, say "They're MINE" and have your right to that property protected. Assuredly, someone will say, "Oh, but that's exactly what socialists do!" Socialism provides for a centralisation of economic production and distribution, which does not immediately violate the right to private property...it only puts limits on what can be privately, versus publically owned. Capitalists, however, under the neoliberal ideology, use that particular economic system to violate the public property rights of states and communities by making such property illegal (through trade agreements) or impossible (by tying aid into structural adjustment programs).

Most socialists, or left leaners, are not so much concerned with making everyone the same (a hackneyed and old argument that very few champion), but rather focus on removing inequity...the barriers thrown up to exacerbate inequality for the benefit of a few. Equal opportunity does NOT exist when rich nations determine the economic systems of poor nations, while maintaining subsidies and protectionist policies in their own countries even as they forbid these policies to others.

Everyone has the possibility, because everyone pays. Even if they don't need it themselves! It's the same as paying a hospital-bill, just without the perks.

Well done, you fumbled onto the core argument of socialism - from each according to their ability to each according to their need and all that. And everyone needs healthcare - dentists, an ear infection, you know. And when the time comes when some poor guy gets cancer of the lung, then the state will raised the funds from EVERYONE so he doesn't have to pay to survive. Those that are richer and don't need the money get taxed more so that those who are poor can at least get as good healthcare, even though they still live in some shit house, being paid nothing by their rich boss who takes all the profit for himself, sending their kids to a rough neighbourhood school getting poor grades...while some other equally stupid rich kid gets sent to private school where he can get better grades cos his teachers are all the best money can buy.

And that's the way it is...if someone is bright enough they can surely get scholarships. Hell, even I got a big scholarship and I don't view myself as being at the top of any ladder.

That's the way it is IN YOUR COUNTRY. In most countries, people have no recourse to scholorships, minimum wage or labour guarantees, free education or healthcare or any sort of security. Compare your situation to a person living in Darfur, Sudan and tell me you both have equal opportunities to succeed.

Socialism is a dream. An ideal. Inever works. I live in Norway. In Norway we have a socialist government, so I know what I'm talking about.

Capitalism is a dream. An ideal. It never works. I live in Canada. In Canada we have a capitalist economic system, so I know what I'm talking about.

Please. No ideology is perfect, no ideology works as it should. We try to fix it as we go along, and eventually we replace it with something else. Socialism doesn't work in Norway? Let's be realistic...your country enjoys an incredible standard of living compared to many 'capitalist' countries such as Argentina, Peru, Bolivia, Haiti etc. Let's say, socialism in Norway isn't perfect, just like capitalism in Canada isn't perfect. ALL systems can be improved upon, but throwing them out for not living up to your expectations is a little like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I don't think capitalism is working well right now, but I am confident that with more democratic input, more MASS input into how capitalism is allowed to function, it can be a good system. Your attitude seems a bit fatalistic...some optimism and (dare I say) ACTION instead of complaining might be a way to improve your situation.

Just to say, people in the US do not have rights if those rights are not enforced. You are more likely to be stopped and searched if you are black in some parts of the US-I don't see equal rights in practice there.
There is no use saying someone has a right, when in practice they don't.

The English dictionary defines socialism as a system of political beliefs concerned with placing the means of production in the hands of the masses. I

COMMUNISM wishes to abolish private property.

Me and my family are socialists, but this does not apply to us. Socialism is about giving every man at least enough to live a normal life. It i not because you don't have cancer that someone else has to die because he does not have the money to receive treatment. Every man owes a lot to 'society' as a whole. Virtually noone made it on his own. From the moment you are born untill the moment you receive your first paycheck (and often longer) you are borrowing from others - your parents, the government, etc. I only find it normal that you then in return try to provide this service to others when you earn more than enough to lead a normal life. I don't say you are not allowed to earn more than average, but you have to think about others that don't have this luck.

An example: my dad earns a lot of money, and the more money you make in my country, the higher the percentage you have to pay for taxes, and it is allready high as we live in belgium. But still he pays more than 1000 euro a year extra by not claiming tax refunds just because we don't need the extra money.

About the doctors: In socialism (not communism, like your example), the doctor should not even have debts (i myself am going to spend 5-11 years at university and because my family is not poor, they pay almost 500 euro's a year. The rest is payed for by the government). But still the doctor's pay should be higher because of the years he could not make money while he was studying. It's also fair to make it even higher than that because he has to open a practise, doctor's work hard and we want to encourage talented people to become doctors. But his pay still has to be within certain boundaries, as in the end, every human being has the right to live a normal live.

First off, I'm not disagreeing with any system because I believe that I haven't had enough of an experience with all systems except capitalism too know.

What it sounds like is you go about your daily life just like the rest of us and there are no real problems to make you think that your system is worse off then other systems.

What I think some people (if not a good deal of people) in the capitalistic society see as a problem is there doesn't seem to be a financial reward for working as hard as a good percentage of the rich do. If you told someone in America that if they worked hard and made a lot of money that most of their money would go to the government, they wouldn't see it as an opportunity to take on those stressful jobs that call for years of higher education and many years of experience.

What some people don't see or don't want to admit is that a lot of these well off individuals contribute a lot to responsible charities because they do have a lot to give. They do this because they *want* too not because they *have* too.

I mean, would you be more likely to give to a homeless person who badgered people for money or one who quietly asked them for help and thanked them anyway if they didn't have money to give.

Though I've been warned against argument, the greatest period of economic growth was in the middle part of the century, when we had the largest welfare state.

Our biggest growth was during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The middle of the century was spurred by growth caused by war, the recovery from the recession, and the rebuilding of Europe.

Yes, you would almost imagine that workers in such a situation would like to take the capital into their own hands...

And how does socialism do that? By allowing them to vote? George Bush may enjoy political capital, but it doesn't go very far for the citizen.

Capitalism is a dream. An ideal. It never works. I live in Canada. In Canada we have a capitalist economic system, so I know what I'm talking about.

Please. No ideology is perfect, no ideology works as it should. We try to fix it as we go along, and eventually we replace it with something else. Socialism doesn't work in Norway? Let's be realistic...your country enjoys an incredible standard of living compared to many 'capitalist' countries such as Argentina, Peru, Bolivia, Haiti etc. Let's say, socialism in Norway isn't perfect, just like capitalism in Canada isn't perfect. ALL systems can be improved upon, but throwing them out for not living up to your expectations is a little like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I don't think capitalism is working well right now, but I am confident that with more democratic input, more MASS input into how capitalism is allowed to function, it can be a good system. Your attitude seems a bit fatalistic...some optimism and (dare I say) ACTION instead of complaining might be a way to improve your situation.


More Optimism? Please! In these forums? It's like asking for the people to drop their opinions and just make compromises with those they disagree with. Besides, optimism is a direct target for flaming you should know that! ;)

Which Declaration of Human Rights are you referring to? The UN Declaration of Human rights states:

It was my mistake for using the word "article", it gave the impression that I was referring to something written.

I meant that it was the initial right. It is the only way in which a populous can secure the other rights. I think pure capitalism (which I don't agree with) shows what happens when people no longer have capital. I believe a capitalist system must be maintained by limiting it, not by scrapping it.

The right to property is only one among many...and the right to own property does not allow you to interfere with the other human rights...ergo, you can not walk into a country, steal its resources, say "They're MINE" and have your right to that property protected.

Are you arguing for or against socialism here?

Assuredly, someone will say, "Oh, but that's exactly what socialists do!" Socialism provides for a centralisation of economic production and distribution, which does not immediately violate the right to private property...it only puts limits on what can be privately, versus publically owned. Capitalists, however, under the neoliberal ideology, use that particular economic system to violate the public property rights of states and communities by making such property illegal (through trade agreements) or impossible (by tying aid into structural adjustment programs).

The centralisation of economic production and distribution is through the government. It strips people of capital and allows them possession of consumer goods, which is worthless to anyone but the consumer. What this does is take power away from the consumer and gives it to the producer, which is the government.

Most socialists, or left leaners, are not so much concerned with making everyone the same (a hackneyed and old argument that very few champion), but rather focus on removing inequity...the barriers thrown up to exacerbate inequality for the benefit of a few.

Read my first response, I know that.

Equal opportunity does NOT exist when rich nations determine the economic systems of poor nations, while maintaining subsidies and protectionist policies in their own countries even as they forbid these policies to others.

So you believe in a socialistic world order? That is also bad because of the scarcity of resources and specialization advantages.

What some people don't see or don't want to admit is that a lot of these well off individuals contribute a lot to responsible charities because they do have a lot to give. They do this because they *want* too not because they *have* too.

I mean, would you be more likely to give to a homeless person who badgered people for money or one who quietly asked them for help and thanked them anyway if they didn't have money to give.

Why would I give money to someone if I believed that that bum is there because they are lazy? This is indeed the attitude among many..that the poor deserve to be poor since their economic standing is a direct result of their lack of effort. This attitude refuses to factor in the barriers that exist...barriers that the middle class in the U.S are fettered by as well. The middle class pays a huge amount of the tax burden, with very little opportunity to advance into the 'wealthy' category, no matter how much they work. Why would you break your back doing overtime, when it is only going to bump you up to the next tax bracket and end up earning you LESS or the SAME as working a 40 hour work week? The "American Dream" of making it rich is often based on fantasies of becoming famous and fabulously wealthy...not by working hard and becoming rich, because it is as useless an idea as planning your retirement around winning a lottery.

Taxes are necessary to provide the infrastructure and social systems that help create a robust and resiliant economy. Unfortunately, in any economic system, taxes tend to be handled in a corrupt, and wasteful manner. THAT is what we need to change.

I'd continue, but I'm taking lunch now:)

It was my mistake for using the word "article", it gave the impression that I was referring to something written.

I meant that it was the initial right. It is the only way in which a populous can secure the other rights. I think pure capitalism (which I don't agree with) shows what happens when people no longer have capital. I believe a capitalist system must be maintained by limiting it, not by scrapping it.

Agreed.

Are you arguing for or against socialism here?
Must everything be so black and white? I am for a mixed economy...a democratic capitalism that balances social needs and responsibilities.


The centralisation of economic production and distribution is through the government. It strips people of capital and allows them possession of consumer goods, which is worthless to anyone but the consumer. What this does is take power away from the consumer and gives it to the producer, which is the government.

Yet those consumers possess goods...they own property...a right which you champion, and I do not dispute. Why are goods provided by the government rather than a private enterprise worthless? How are goods (which include services) suddenly of more value when produced and provided privately? Private providers also strip people of capital and provides them with possession of consumer goods, directly. Governments strip people of capital through taxes, which pay for goods that are too expensive for one person to purchase alone (roads, healthcare, etc.). Both systems require capital as an input, and allow for property rights.


So you believe in a socialistic world order? That is also bad because of the scarcity of resources and specialization advantages.

So you believe in a neoliberal world order? That is also bad because of the scarcity of resources and specialization of advantages. It guarantees opportunities to the rich and powerful, while actively denying them to the vast majority of people who are poor. It creates, sustains and encourages poverty and the inequal distribution of wealth and resources amongst those who are the most bloodthirsty and willing to 'wrest' them from others.

:headbang: What I find remarkable is that we are fighting a 19th Century argument in the 21st Century, and, maybe not so oddly, most people do it worse than the people in the 19th Century did. (I don't mean to insult anyone on the forum; the comment was aimed at society in general).

If human history has taught us anything, it is that nothing works; systems are built of patches of ideals, which is fine. We cannot make the argument as broad as capitalist vs socialist. If we do this, we exclude cultural influences, history, political involvement etc. Instead it would make sense to look at individual situations.

Also, speaking from the stand point of an ecological socialist (if I can use the term), I don't think it is smart for the world to follow any set system. Just like in the genetic makeup of an ecosystem, survival is dependent on diversity. It might be better for America to be a more capitalist system than Norway so that when problems that face the earth come to the forefront we have a multitude of opinions to look at.

Finally, I would like to address this comment:
"What I think some people (if not a good deal of people) in the capitalistic society see as a problem is there doesn't seem to be a financial reward for working as hard as a good percentage of the rich do. If you told someone in America that if they worked hard and made a lot of money that most of their money would go to the government, they wouldn't see it as an opportunity to take on those stressful jobs that call for years of higher education and many years of experience"

I would argue that the reality of capitalism negates your point. I understand the rhetoric that if you work hard you will succeed, but for this to be a reality basic social inequalities must be limited. I would argue that a Rawlsian conception of justice would be the best way to do this. However, that is nor here nor there. The bottom line is that people cannot be judged as if they started from an equal footing when they did not. To paraphrase Bob Rae (old Premier of Ontario) ‘I am tired of people claiming they hit a home run when they started on third base.’

Also, I would be careful of how you compare managers to labour / low income earners. I paid for a lot of my first year of University, which I am now in, with money I earned in a year of working in a factory. I have also spent a lot of time doing volunteer / paid work with cities and companies where I got to work in offices. I would consider my time in the factory more stressful and demanding – especially when you consider my above point that some people don’t have the same social opportunities. While I understand this is far from scientific, I would argue that the stress and difficulty of office workers compared to people on the factory floor is pretty equal if not surpassed by those on the floor. The difference in wage comes from who has the power not who does more.

Bye for now

P.s. (readdressing my first section) if we are going to address the issues of environmental degradation, global warming, and globalization (corporate, civil, etc) we have to look beyond old dogmas.

P.s. (readdressing my first section) if we are going to address the issues of environmental degradation, global warming, and globalization (corporate, civil, etc) we have to look beyond old dogmas.

No ideology is perfect, no ideology works as it should. We try to fix it as we go along, and eventually we replace it with something else. ALL systems can be improved upon, but throwing them out for not living up to your expectations is a little like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I don't think capitalism is working well right now, but I am confident that with more democratic input, more MASS input into how capitalism is allowed to function, it can be a good system.

Agreed. We forget that the systems that exist now are relatively new...though they feel like they've been around forever. Systems change, we change, change is good...we should strive in each generation to find a better way of doing things.

Must everything be so black and white? I am for a mixed economy...a democratic capitalism that balances social needs and responsibilities.

We are having trouble with definitions but in my opinion they are black and white. You can either be a capitalistic economy or a socialist economy. That doesn't mean that capitalism cannot be limited through socialist policies, or that a socialism cannot be limited by capitalistic policies.

For example:

China: Socialist, to preserve protectionism and to limit the rights of the workers, but very corporate dominated to build tremendous wealth.

US: Capitalistic, to build wealth, to provide a free market, and provide their citizens with economic autonomy, but monopolistic controls and income taxes to preserve a consumer dominated economy.

Yet those consumers possess goods...they own property...a right which you champion, and I do not dispute.

Damn right, I champion it. We maintain our right to property, we keep the power to maintain the rest of our rights.

Why are goods provided by the government rather than a private enterprise worthless? How are goods (which include services) suddenly of more value when produced and provided privately?

They are equally worthless in each system. Consumer goods are end goods, they are distributed and stop at that level, there is no further distribution as there is no demand, therefore they only retain value to those who own them.

Private providers also strip people of capital and provides them with possession of consumer goods, directly. Governments strip people of capital through taxes, which pay for goods that are too expensive for one person to purchase alone (roads, healthcare, etc.). Both systems require capital as an input, and allow for property rights.

It is the level to which they allow property rights that I have the problem with.

You are correct, in a capitalist economy there is an exchange of labor capital for goods, and the government takes a chunk out of this exchange. The difference is that in a capitalist economy, the government can limit either end from becoming too powerful and ruining the balance. While in a socialism, who prevents government from ruining the balance?

So you believe in a neoliberal world order? That is also bad because of the scarcity of resources and specialization of advantages.

Scarcity of resources and specialization provides that one group can provide something more efficiently than the other, providing for a cheaper and higher quality good for the consumer.

guarantees opportunities to the rich and powerful, while actively denying them to the vast majority of people who are poor. It creates, sustains and encourages poverty and the inequal distribution of wealth and resources amongst those who are the most bloodthirsty and willing to 'wrest' them from others.

No, opportunities are not denied to the poor. While it is unlikely that a poor individual will not rise to the elite, it is very possible for them to rise to the middle class.

Through competition the inequal distribution of wealth is not encouraged. As long as competition is preserved the distribution of wealth is encouraged.

The gathering of capital under the government is the opposite of distribution of wealth. You can say that a democratic government would mean that the wealth would be collectively owned by the people, but you would be kidding yourself.

We are having trouble with definitions but in my opinion they are black and white. You can either be a capitalistic economy or a socialist economy. That doesn't mean that capitalism cannot be limited through socialist policies, or that a socialism cannot be limited by capitalistic policies.

For example:

China: Socialist, to preserve protectionism and to limit the rights of the workers, but very corporate dominated to build tremendous wealth.

US: Capitalistic, to build wealth, to provide a free market, and provide their citizens with economic autonomy, but monopolistic controls and income taxes to preserve a consumer dominated economy.

Ok, I will accept your definitions within the context of this discussion. That means I get to attack them:)

Your definition of socialist with China as an example is interesting...now let us apply it to the U.S.

Preserve protectionism: The U.S is not a free market system. It is in fact, very protectionist. The government provides massive subsidies to domestic producers in order to maintain the competitiveness of American goods on the world market. What this does, is forces the prices of other producers down, and forces them to produce more each year just to keep up with American suppliers. This is damaging to the U.S as well, as goods flood the market, further devaluing them, making it necessary for the U.S government to provide further subsidies.

Limit the rights of workers: The free market necessitates a paring down of worker rights, in order to provide the best possible environment for business to thrive in. Free market systems are inherintly anti-protectionist (which I have already mentioned, is not the case in the U.S). As well, barriers to trade such as minimum wages, guaranteed working hours, social benefits and state-provided services (health care, education, etc) are removed in order to allow business a 'fair' shot at making a profit. The U.S is a rather confused state in this sense... it promotes the free market abroad, and even to some extents in it's own country, but it also has a large percentage of people who resist the dismantling of all 'trade barriers'. Which side will win out is anyone's guess.

Corporate dominated to provide wealth: Again, within the free market system, 'trade barriers' are reduced and eliminated in order to allow free access to markets by private interests. Corporate wealth is meant to 'trickle down', creating investor excitement and domestic wealth. Unfortunately, less government barriers to the free flow of capital also means that there is nothing guaranteeing that this wealth (other than the pittance doled out in wages) will stay in the producing country, rather than being whisked away to the private coffers of shareholders.

Obstensibly, these three things are the goal of the U.S in terms of economies abroad. The domestic policies of the U.S, however, tend to be much more protectionist and do not in fact, resemble a free market. The monopolistic controls as well seem to be failing, as more and more media are concentrated into fewer hands, and consumer choice is limited to huge superchains that offer similar goods at similar prices. "Competition" in this sense is limited to the amount of mark down that can be forced on foreign suppliers compared to the mark up that can be achieved in order to match competitor's (inflated) prices. BOTH ECONOMIES (China and the U.S) are controlled by competing government and private interests, and resemble each other in ways that are somewhat surprising.



You are correct, in a capitalist economy there is an exchange of labor capital for goods, and the government takes a chunk out of this exchange. The difference is that in a capitalist economy, the government can limit either end from becoming too powerful and ruining the balance. While in a socialism, who prevents government from ruining the balance?

In a capitalist system, who prevents the capitalists (big C...the corporations, not the ma and pa shops) from ruining the balance? The government must step in and create the balance, just as they would in a socialist system. My argument is not that one system is better than the other, rather than they compliment each other. To define one economy as purely socialist, and the other economy as purely capitalist, is unrealistic, and frankly false. No pure capitalist economy exists, just as no pure socialist economy exists. The blends that DO exists vary in their leanings one way or the other.

Edit: By the way, democracy is a political system, not an economic one...it makes no guarantees about whether wealth will be collective or private.

First of all, a distinction has to be made about what exactly is meant by "socialism." There are many different variants of socialism, but I'll focus on the two "big ones" (according to my opinion). First, there is the socialism that was practiced in the USSR. This was the byproduct of a social revolution based on the theories of Karl Marx. However, the end goal of communism (which is an economic and not a political system) was never actually achieved. The idea was that the government would control most to all property until all its member nations were socially ready for a communistic society where everyone gave according to his/her ability and was given what their needs dictated. Once this point was reached, the government would, in effect, dissolve. That never happened, and a despotic, strongly centralized government regime took over virtually all the economic processes of the region. The other big form of socialism is a policy of strengthened central government taking charge of various private enterprises. Many of the New Deal era reforms (social security, for one) as well as the Johnsonite Great Society projects were socialist in nature. The seeming success of New Deal reforms in ending the Great Depression made such socialist policies widely popular in many western European nations. This led to a period of time when deficite spending by the government to pay for social programs (based incorrectly on the theories set forth by the economist John Maynard Keynes). Both forms hold a strong central government in common, and a goal of increased social equality. How these systems go about attaining those goals, and their level of success, is where they vary. Bear in mind, socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive: socialism is a political model while capitalism is an economic model, after all. And as always, the full scope of the policy depends on where it is implemented and by whom. The realm of global politics and economics is much to vast to use sweeping generalizations.

Ok, I will accept your definitions within the context of this discussion. That means I get to attack them:)

Your definition of socialist with China as an example is interesting...now let us apply it to the U.S.

Preserve protectionism: The U.S is not a free market system. It is in fact, very protectionist. The government provides massive subsidies to domestic producers in order to maintain the competitiveness of American goods on the world market. What this does, is forces the prices of other producers down, and forces them to produce more each year just to keep up with American suppliers. This is damaging to the U.S as well, as goods flood the market, further devaluing them, making it necessary for the U.S government to provide further subsidies.

Have you seen our goods trade deficit? It is through the roof, or floor, whatever.

Limit the rights of workers: The free market necessitates a paring down of worker rights, in order to provide the best possible environment for business to thrive in. Free market systems are inherintly anti-protectionist (which I have already mentioned, is not the case in the U.S). As well, barriers to trade such as minimum wages, guaranteed working hours, social benefits and state-provided services (health care, education, etc) are removed in order to allow business a 'fair' shot at making a profit. The U.S is a rather confused state in this sense... it promotes the free market abroad, and even to some extents in it's own country, but it also has a large percentage of people who resist the dismantling of all 'trade barriers'. Which side will win out is anyone's guess.

Protectionism does not have anything to do with capitalism, I used it as an example of how the government uses its economic power to limit the rights of the power of the worker in the economy.

Capitalism is conducive to higher wages, as the more efficient a worker is, the greater the profit margin is for a company, so companies will be willing to pay for a higher skilled employee.

The rest of those of the socialist tactics to preserve the balance of the free market that I referred to. These do not cancel out the fact that the US is a capitalist, mostly free market system.

Corporate dominated to provide wealth: Again, within the free market system, 'trade barriers' are reduced and eliminated in order to allow free access to markets by private interests. Corporate wealth is meant to 'trickle down', creating investor excitement and domestic wealth. Unfortunately, less government barriers to the free flow of capital also means that there is nothing guaranteeing that this wealth (other than the pittance doled out in wages) will stay in the producing country, rather than being whisked away to the private coffers of shareholders.

Once again, this does not change the fact that China is socialist with capitalistic tendencies. Corporate wealth isn't allowed to trickle down in China like it is here through prohibitive taxes.

Obstensibly, these three things are the goal of the U.S in terms of economies abroad. The domestic policies of the U.S, however, tend to be much more protectionist and do not in fact, resemble a free market. The monopolistic controls as well seem to be failing, as more and more media are concentrated into fewer hands, and consumer choice is limited to huge superchains that offer similar goods at similar prices. "Competition" in this sense is limited to the amount of mark down that can be forced on foreign suppliers compared to the mark up that can be achieved in order to match competitor's (inflated) prices. BOTH ECONOMIES (China and the U.S) are controlled by competing government and private interests, and resemble each other in ways that are somewhat surprising.

Agree with you for the most part here. The difference is the amount of power the population of the US has economically. Where as the government is in control of most of the wealth in China, the public is in charge in the US, and that provides American with at least some power to control government.


In a capitalist system, who prevents the capitalists (big C...the corporations, not the ma and pa shops) from ruining the balance? The government must step in and create the balance, just as they would in a socialist system. My argument is not that one system is better than the other, rather than they compliment each other. To define one economy as purely socialist, and the other economy as purely capitalist, is unrealistic, and frankly false. No pure capitalist economy exists, just as no pure socialist economy exists. The blends that DO exists vary in their leanings one way or the other.

They are not pure either way, but their bases are different. Where as China tempers a socialistic economy with capitalistic policies, the US tempers a capitalistic economy with socialistic policies. The difference between the two is evident in the power of the populous.

Edit: It is of my opinion that democracy can only be maintained by capitalism. I have said a couple times before, but government will accept all power we want to give it.

In my experience, socialists are not the most fully rounded of people. Usually they are bitter at the world.
I think socialists are bitter about the world because it is very unequal and thus very unsocialist.

What's wrong with sociable people now? Ask me, it wouldn't hurt if everybody was a little more sociable.

I'm a socialist.

Lately blowhard statements such as these have been extremely popular under the Bush-youth. But then again, thats to be expected from people who actually voted for Bush. After all it takes one to vote for one.

I'll admit though, Bush is an excellent example of a capitalist. Certainly manages to ensure that at least HE stays rich. Regardless of how well off the rest of the country is.

I for one don't like capitalism at all. I recognize its a neccesary evil. But an evil nonetheless. Just because some people might be born stronger. (Or in a term that actually MATTERS in society, in wealthier environments.) Does not make them superior nor entitles them to more in my view. Regardless of any bombastic claims they might make.

And if there is one thing that describes the right perfectly every time the latest right-wing dork opens their maw. Its bombastic. And then they foam at the mouth and throw temper tantrums too when someone disagrees with them in less then polite terms.

You think they'd be sensible enough to see they have it coming. But then again... they voted for Bush, can't give them to much credit in the mental department... And empathy with ones fellow human being seems to be on the way out too. 8-D

In their defense though. The American definition of socialism seems to be 'totalitarian soviet dictatorship.' But then again, creationism is taken serious by alot of americans... So thats another strike there....

I'm a socialist.

Lately blowhard statements such as these have been extremely popular under the Bush-youth. But then again, thats to be expected from people who actually voted for Bush. After all it takes one to vote for one.

Consider yourself ignored

Important to note that the world's least succesful economies [Uganda, Burkina Faso, Ciosta Rica, Sierra Leone] are capitalist and that socialism has never really been tried. Socialism is about creating equality even if we aren't born with it.

Have you seen our goods trade deficit? It is through the roof, or floor, whatever.
Which one? High or low?

Protectionism does not have anything to do with capitalism, I used it as an example of how the government uses its economic power to limit the rights of the power of the worker in the economy.
Yes, yet you declared the U.S to have a capitalist economy, not a socialist one. You're right, protectionism has no place in pure market capitalism, yet there it is, in existence in the U.S economy.

Capitalism is conducive to higher wages, as the more efficient a worker is, the greater the profit margin is for a company, so companies will be willing to pay for a higher skilled employee. Ah, but you are speaking of the still unmanifested 'invisible hand' that is supposed to increase wages and levels of working conditions in order to maximise profit. This is not the case in practice. Instead, there is a marked 'race to the bottom' going on in the world, which is essentially the drive to provide the lowest wages, human rights and production costs possible in order to attract investment. Companies making record profits are firing employees, union busting to keep wages low, and lobbying for an end to the minimum wage. Maximum profits come from lower production costs, and eliminating governmental protections. The majority of businesses out there are service based...low skill, low pay. You speak in another thread about government controls of capitalism, which I support. Here is what I think the government needs to keep its hands in:

Government needs to:

1. Protect staple foods and small farmers from free trade agreements.
A country should be at least able to feed itself. Switching to 'cash crops' like cotton or tobacco undermines the food security of a nation, and does not guarantee wealth...instead overproduction drops world market prices.

2. Ensure that trade agreements respect labour rights.
Dismantling unions, cutting minimum wages, getting rid of overtime etc only benefits the corporations and creates job insecurity. People need to make a living wage, or they fall back on taxed social systems (or non-existent systems, which leaves them nowhere to turn). This does not mean equal pay for all jobs...a doctor should still make more than a waitress...but the waitress should have recourse to collective bargaining if she chooses, and not be forced to work 90 hours a week just to pay her rent.

3. Have the power to establish and defend intellectual property rules that protect the interests of their citizens.
This means guaranteeing access to essential drugs (generics), maintaining biodiversity (no forcing GM crops on people), and traditional cultures (multiculturalism laws are being challenged by trade agreements that see this as a barrier to trade).

4. Ensure that trade agreements are entered into democratically, with citizen input.
Our representatives are signing us into trade agreements we may not even know about, or support...and we are bound to them. Trade needs to be more democratic, and respect civil and human rights as well as the environment.

5. Regulate foreign investment to protect their citizens.
The investment free for all of the last few decades has seen the economies of some Asian nations (Asian flu) and Argentina (most recent) become completely destabilised because of investor pullouts. This have serious repercussions on linked economies, as well as domestic labour and political hardships that are difficult to recover from. [points taken from the New Internationalist, issue 374]



Edit: It is of my opinion that democracy can only be maintained by capitalism. I have said a couple times before, but government will accept all power we want to give it.

Then define the capitalism you are talking about...I think you have an idea of a mixed system, because you have mentioned government controls. A true free market economy is not tempered by government interference. I agree with your last sentence, and feel that governments are inherently corrupt...massive citizen participation is needed to 'keep 'em honest'. That would be true no matter the economic system.

I for one don't like capitalism at all. I recognize its a neccesary evil. But an evil nonetheless. .

Yikes, more absolutes...capitalism is no more evil in and of itself than socialism is. Sigh.

I enjoyed the 5 points that governments need to do; however, I would note a few extra points that I believe are lacking. The first is that we need to start thinking about sustainability, future generations, and moving away from future discounting. There is no reasonable explanation for a first world nation to not include these steps into their decision making. Unfortunately, dogmatic arguments of left vs right often allow for these to be forgotten.

Secondly, as you have mentioned numerous times, governments must take a proactive stance toward engaging citizens. If citizens aren't engaged democracy means nothing. Personally, I would suggest a move toward both Proportional rep and deliberative democracy, although I am open to other suggestions.

The final point that I would note is that First World gov'ts need to adequately look at the issue of third world poverty. If not for the issue of equity and justice, which I personally believe is enough, for the fact that poverty leads to future discounting and environmental degradation – not to mention a loss of the individual rights people in the first world are so accustomed to.

-Justin

To paraphrase Bob Rae (old Premier of Ontario) ‘I am tired of people claiming they hit a home run when they started on third base.’

Quality.

You made a lot of other good points, I'm just lazy right now and liked that line.

I have read several statements from self stated socialists that are wide in variance but seem to come back to the same theme.....the old tried and failed "each according to his ability, each according to his need."

The human animal is a strving animal, and limiting its; ability to strive for economic improvement hampers and eventually kills his productivity and progress. i actually read the most failed economies are the ones the most open....er, huh? the most open economies are the also the most successful. see....US. see china as it "opens"....see Australia...see most developed nations......the problem is "need" is the variable here. "need" of the hman animal is basic shelter, basic clothing, and basic food, and throw in basic education and health care in the civilized world. These are not horribly expensive, but as usual with the utopians, etc., they never stop at that. i happen to belive in a progrerssive tax system and basic services for the needy from the government.....but just that BASIC word means just BASIC to me. Any more than that, off tha duff! Someonhe please tell me how, especially since so many "socilaists" tend to view themselves as "educated", though nieve and unworldly, often still in college in reality, can;t look at the economic systems in the world and the performance of "scoialist" nations. Spain, France, Germany, etc. are societies in close proximity tio failure. their productivity has lagged, their birth rates have dropped, their overall future of the "welfare state" is now untenable. Even the great and mighty Scandinavian countries are going to have to go through major reform in the next 10-15 years, due to unsustainable tax population to social commitment levels, like the US is tackling now in SS reform (which Bush's ideas, for the record, suck). it is simply measuring an economic system by its' productivity, and i for one, consider economic freedom and a right to the pursuit of property (in is the original line i the US constitution, not pursuit of happiness)to be as important as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. For the record, too, the term "ECONOMMIC JUSTICE" implies to me, if you are talented, hard working, and commit yourself to making something of yourself, your reward is economic, and if you are dumb, lazy, don;t do anything and don;t take of yourself, etc., and you have nothing, it is precisely what you deserve. now all civlized nations have a responsiblity to provide the BASICS, which the US does, despite mass misinformation by the Euro media, we spend 1.4 trillion as of fiscal 2003 on "entitlements" (most of which is ss and medicare), nearly three times the big bad military budget, but does not, nor should it, guarantee a lifestyle for the unproductive and the expense of the productive...give and unproductive man a check, when its; spent, he is still unproductive. The real debate isn;t basic services should be provided as a benefit to a civilized countries' citizenship, a stable sciety has to have these. what is at debate is why it should ever be permanent unless you are elderly or truly disabled. i don;t think it should be. oh, and min wage? in the US, over 70% of minimum wage earners are teenagers living with their parents. mcdonald's pays, in Indiana, a bottom tier cost of living state, 8 dollars an hour to START. Unlike many European nations, US unemployment stands at a whopping 5ish percent. My point is, i don;t feel government is any less corrupt than corporations, don;t feel the government can spend my money better than i can in any way shape or form, and a fair tax rate is never as high as 50% (which i almost pay a year, by the way, and i come poverty.) I think the problem is bureaucracy and burueacrats aren;t very well respected by a lot of people, and a majority of americans, for example. yes, the american system is way overprotective of the truly wealthy, but it is alos one of the last bastions of the world where a kid can come from the streets to become a ceo or a senator. let us say "overly" socialist systems kills that nearly completely. the problem is that, simply socilaism never works. nor does an unregulated economy, a true free market, either. the blend of the two is what all advanced nations have, and my argument is Europe has gone way too far, and america is about right but needs to clean up its' wealth protectionist/oligarchal ways. Neither is perfect. but i would truly not want to live in an overly socialist nation, it kills opportunity and even hope for a truly free life to make of your life what you can.

and who said US is overly "protectionist"? we have the largest trade deficit in the world and without the US consumer, Chinese and eruo economies go <kaput>. the US protects its' farm capability, which is as much a national defense motive as a protectionist motive. The only thing the US economy truly "needs" is energy sources. the protectionism is largely a political play, the US manufacturing sector, aside from skilled high end manufacturing, is dead here. hardly protectionist.

my overall point is, simply, it isn;t is socialism bad, it is, it fails every time. so does a lasseiz faire economy, i is wher do the two meet fairly and freely?
at whatpoint does taxation become a de-motivator for productivity? at what point does a leech on the system (ahem) i mean, lifelong benefitor of state prgrams get off the dole and become a productive member of society rather than a cost to society? when does an "entitlement" cross the line into wenforced charity rights? i call myself vrulently anti-socilaist, but in truth i am anti-overly socialist.....socialism, and its' ugly and retarded cousin, communism, have proven to be society killers. look it up, folks. where is the middle ground? it isn;t i europe, and the US, while closer, isn't there either.

by the way, college students, when you have to get out in the real world, as i have a ways back, you'll find that earning your own check and having your own propertyy and family serves your viewpoints to the economic right. i am still a social liberal, but my socialist days were left at the graduating ceremony, the real world has a way of a quick rude awakening.

:headbang: (I seem to use this more than I would like)

To start, Grandparents out there, just because I am young doesn't mean that I don't have a grasp on reality and scholarship. Sorry that was mean, but don't for an instant think that I am just young and naive. While I understand the benefits of life experience, it is important to note that scholarship of an issue is essential to discovering a solution. It would seem, however, that many of the people discussing this issue do not have a great amount of historical research behind their points. Thus, they are reinventing the wheel and not doing a great job.

If you wish to have a real debate on the actual definitions of Capitalism and Socialism, we can do that. However, the basic tone of argument in this thread has been "I am a 'capitalist'. I will define socialist as a country I decide, then I will attack it for not living up to the definition I impose on it."

The problem, it seems, is that you are viewing GDP / Economic growth as an end all. The problem with this approach is that it is not sustainable. Furthermore, this approach does nothing to examine the way an economy gains its strength, which can be in quite a devious fashion. Again, as I have stated, this is why we can't continue to look at the world through the lens of old arguments.

As a final point, birth rates falling are a good thing. It is an indicator that a nation is moving toward a post industrial society, and it is essential to sustainability. Again, this would not seem correct to people looking for infinite growth, but we don't need infinite economic growth - we need a sustainable way of life.

And goodnight,
-Justin

As a final point, birth rates falling are a good thing. It is an indicator that a nation is moving toward a post industrial society, and it is essential to sustainability. Again, this would not seem correct to people looking for infinite growth, but we don't need infinite economic growth - we need a sustainable way of life.
I want to have your baby.

I want to have your baby.

Well, I really wasn't expecting a comment like that. You are the victor. Someone at the door will give you your prize.