NationStates Jolt Archive

Discuss

Capitalism, when it's practiced as it was originally intended, is incredibly efficient. But, since it cannot be practiced as originally intended, a little, miniscule bit of government regulation is tolerable. Things like anti-trust legislation, safety laws, union protection laws and the like.

There is also an incentive to work in Capitalism. In socialism, the big government controls most everything, including the flow of employment. Thus, a doctor may make the same as a restaurant worker, because the common good is the goal, not individual success. Therefore, there is no real incentive to go through years of medical school to make the same as everyone else. One more pro for Capitalism, God love it....

Why can't we have some of each?

75% Capitalism.

25% Socialism.

Can't we all get along?

:fluffle:

Capitalism is as self-destructive as any other system. Why? because at it's intendeed limit it ceases to be capitalism.

As companies gro larger they will expand accross markets (CAT for example do bulldozers, boots, pencil cases, all sorts). And so, as one must ultimately lose you will end up with one megacorporation in charge because it provided what appeared to be the best service.

Socialism, implemented properly would short-cut to government run business but provide a better standard of life on the way. Neither in the end is terribly appealing to me.

There is also an incentive to work in Capitalism. In socialism, the big government controls most everything, including the flow of employment. Thus, a doctor may make the same as a restaurant worker, because the common good is the goal, not individual success. Therefore, there is no real incentive to go through years of medical school to make the same as everyone else. One more pro for Capitalism, God love it....

My premise as well. In Socialism you can strive to be as worse as you possibly can and make the same as a determined lawyer or doctor, that's f*cked up.

Capitalism is as self-destructive as any other system. Why? because at it's intendeed limit it ceases to be capitalism.

As companies gro larger they will expand accross markets (CAT for example do bulldozers, boots, pencil cases, all sorts). And so, as one must ultimately lose you will end up with one megacorporation in charge because it provided what appeared to be the best service.

Socialism, implemented properly would short-cut to government run business but provide a better standard of life on the way. Neither in the end is terribly appealing to me.


While I understand your comment about companies expanding, this goes in both directions, as an equal number of companies are more specializing as they go. for example, look at Anheuser Busch, they got rid of their "Eagle Snacks line of foods" so they could focus on making the sweet nectar of life that is Budweiser and its other products. Part of capitalism is the idea that specialization is possible, and that you can barter/trade your specialized goods with another company/country that has comparative advantage in a different good or service. This is not the same with socialism...

Capitalism, for many reasons, but one very important one. It is the only system based solely on the rights of the people.

I couldn't have said that better myself... Socialism beliefs are of the government granting you this, the government providing this, the government allowing this. Capitalism is based on your rights, as an individual, and as a people.

bump bump

In any sane socialist economy:

*People will not receive uniform pay for totally different tasks.

*"The government" won't own a thing while it's an institution apart from the people.

So I don't know what most of you are talking about. Some fantasy enemy that you can figure out how to beat, perhaps. Which is a bit lame.

Socialism isn't entirely in conflict with capitalism in some regards. It's just that the understanding that people seem to have of capitalism isn't any more fair or reasonable than their misconception of socialism, apparently.

For my part, I'm an advocate of socialism because I'm opposed to theft, I suppose. And because I'm a democrat. And the modern distortion of capitalism is both theft-oriented and counter-democratic.

So there you go, that's me.

I couldn't have said that better myself... Socialism beliefs are of the government granting you this, the government providing this, the government allowing this. Capitalism is based on your rights, as an individual, and as a people.


You can keep saying that all day, it's not going to make it true.

Why can't we have some of each?

75% Capitalism.

25% Socialism.

Can't we all get along?

:fluffle:
China's "market socialism" has been kicking some ass for the last 25 years or so.

You can keep saying that all day, it's not going to make it true.

Ahh, my old friend, BG... I thought that was you under that russian hat sitting in the corner of the room enjoying your vodka... I will continue to speak the praises of capitalism, as it is to date the only system created by the people, for the people, based on the freedoms of the people.

Ahh, my old friend, BG... I thought that was you under that russian hat sitting in the corner of the room enjoying your vodka... I will continue to speak the praises of capitalism, as it is to date the only system created by the people, for the people, based on the freedoms of the people.

Wrong. If anything Capitalism protects the rights of the few, making sure only a few have all the money while many others are poor.

In socialism there is no money for example bread is made to be eaten, not sold, cars are made to be driven, not sold for profit ect. so in a sense people do things in exchange for the others doing their thing and everyone pitches in by doing what their best at and makes the perfict society. And if in capitalism people "work" for or "earn" their money, how come a hard-working coal miner will make less in his entire life, than a basketball player will make by playing one game, the b-ball player PLAYS A FREAKEN GAME and makes more money than someone who auctually does something useful, now THAT'S fuck*d up!

Capitalism, a system that protects the rights of the people, protects their rights to own other people, protects their rights to take the fruits of other people's labor, protects their rights to sell other people, and protects their rights to force others to work for a member of their class or die. A true system of freedom.

For my part, I'm an advocate of socialism because I'm opposed to theft, I suppose. And because I'm a democrat. And the modern distortion of capitalism is both theft-oriented and counter-democratic.

Couldn't you consider redistribution of wealth as a form of wealth? If you're taking someone's money that they earned and giving it to someone else or putting it into social programs (even if they're considered "beneficial") haven't you stolen from someone?

In socialism there is no money for example bread is made to be eaten, not sold, cars are made to be driven, not sold for profit ect. so in a sense people do things in exchange for the others doing their thing and everyone pitches in by doing what their best at and makes the perfict society. And if in capitalism people "work" for or "earn" their money, how come a hard-working coal miner will make less in his entire life, than a basketball player will make by playing one game, the b-ball player PLAYS A FREAKEN GAME and makes more money than someone who auctually does something useful, now THAT'S fuck*d up!

I think you are thinking of real Communisim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communisim) , not democratic Socialism.

ahhhh, but it appears you are confusing rights and will... Everyone has the same rights in a capitalist society, it is the will to succeed that varies from person to person. There are a great many that went from poverty to riches, it all starts with a dream.

Just because a few have succeeded more than others does not mean there is not a chance for redemption. Part of capitalism is also the social safety net, although the net needs to be greatly reduced.

Socialism, with its true intent, has never been established. A socialist economy would be owned by the state. The invisible hand would cease to exist, with all people controlling the means of production and distribution. There would still be a market, where each citizen chooses what they want to buy. The Soviet and Chinese systems simply made new capitalists. No system can claim to give freedom if the people have no real control over the economy.

Ahh, my old friend, BG... I thought that was you under that russian hat sitting in the corner of the room enjoying your vodka... I will continue to speak the praises of capitalism, as it is to date the only system created by the people, for the people, based on the freedoms of the people.


But that's a wild fantasy, Danmarc. This is the general forum, dealing with reality, not role-play!

In capitalism as it stands, one man can take take take and give disproportionately little. That's not his magical right, that's just being a gigantic ass. He can own concerns around the world without ever visiting them, and steal from the productive energies of his employees. Even Adam Smith would be unlikely to approve of what he'd see in the modern world.

In socialism, the people don't work for some saviour with capital, a franchise, or whatever, or sit around waiting for one to come along. They don't climb over one another to get ahead and then act like their success is down to hard work and courage as if they could have what they do without society's support. Instead of living thousands of miles from their ultimate employer and having little or no power, they will actually control their own work.

Capitalism as it stands today does nothing less than rob people of both power and profit.

Capitalism is a much more reasonable and efficient economic system in its pure form. Unfortunately, it's near impossible to practice it that way. So, over here in the US, we ended up turning into a capitalist/socialist market. Which is ok. But I'd rather have the ability to spend my money however I want, whenever I want. Oh, well. Look on the bright side, at least we're not communist. I hate commies.

I think you are thinking of real Communisim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communisim) , not democratic Socialism.


I am, but I stick up for socialism because it's a step twards communism so if people continue to bash it we'll never get to communism.


And yes communism does work because people are doing their jobs in EXCHANGE for the others doing their job, so there not doing it "for nothing" as some say.

My belief

Capitalism: The Biggest corporation making everyone bend over and take it.

Socialism: The government doing the same to the people.

No matter what, the regular people get screwed over.

With companies in America outsourcing and devlopers bribing zoning boards so they can make cheap housing by bulldozing every scrap of land around. You end up owned by the one with the deepest Wallet.

With Socialism, the government can do what they like with you.
Either way you truely have no say so.

And What's wrong with Communism? Nothing except Human Nature won't allow people to be live that way. There will always be a greedy bastard who will want more.

Capitalism is a much more reasonable and efficient economic system in its pure form. Unfortunately, it's near impossible to practice it that way. So, over here in the US, we ended up turning into a capitalist/socialist market. Which is ok. But I'd rather have the ability to spend my money however I want, whenever I want. Oh, well. Look on the bright side, at least we're not communist. I hate commies.
A hundred bucks says you know next to nothing about Marxist Communism.

Capitalism is a much more reasonable and efficient economic system in its pure form. Unfortunately, it's near impossible to practice it that way. So, over here in the US, we ended up turning into a capitalist/socialist market. Which is ok. But I'd rather have the ability to spend my money however I want, whenever I want. Oh, well. Look on the bright side, at least we're not communist. I hate commies.

YOU'RE NOT LISTENING! I already said that there IS NO MONEY in communism!
everything is free(but of course you can't try to walk out of a story takeing ALL the bread, or seafood, or TV's or whatever). You probably don't even know the real definition of communism.

Capitalist

But that's a wild fantasy, Danmarc. This is the general forum, dealing with reality, not role-play!

In capitalism as it stands, one man can take take take and give disproportionately little. That's not his magical right, that's just being a gigantic ass. He can own concerns around the world without ever visiting them, and steal from the productive energies of his employees. Even Adam Smith would be unlikely to approve of what he'd see in the modern world.

In socialism, the people don't work for some saviour with capital, a franchise, or whatever, or sit around waiting for one to come along. They don't climb over one another to get ahead and then act like their success is down to hard work and courage as if they could have what they do without society's support. Instead of living thousands of miles from their ultimate employer and having little or no power, they will actually control their own work.


You see, BG, in socialism there is an even smaller ruling class that is in power, that is truly stealing from the people. There is no true non-governing socialism, only corrupt, communist societies where the people are in no control at all, the government feeds them, employs them, not giving the people credit for being smart enough to succeed on their own. The socialism you speak of has not and will not happen, it is but an unattainable dream... Imagine if you will capitalism started to crumble, there would be a ruling party that took over, may try to instill socialist-type policies, but ultimately would never give up precious control... this could never happen..

ahhhh, but it appears you are confusing rights and will... Everyone has the same rights in a capitalist society, it is the will to succeed that varies from person to person. There are a great many that went from poverty to riches, it all starts with a dream.

Just because a few have succeeded more than others does not mean there is not a chance for redemption. Part of capitalism is also the social safety net, although the net needs to be greatly reduced.


But you're not really giving any consideration to your terms. What rights actually are, where the concept comes from in the context of a society with a government.

And as to the rags to riches stuff, well, don't you see the problem, there? That dream requires that somebody else is having a nightmare, allows that poverty to begin with. Great for those who're winning, but because others lost it's okay that they're getting a bum deal? Because they weren't the winners? In a capitalist system, we can't all be capitalists (and celebrities), no matter how hard everyone tries, some have to lose. A chance for redemtion still sucks when some people have to fail anyway. Chances suck when there's enough to go around.

"But you don't need it!" "I gave you a chance to snatch it, you were too slow, now i'm going to eat it." "But you're already full!" "Eh, there's some welfare crumbs on the floor, you can have them since you didn't do anything, anyway." "But I tried! I still want to do something!" "Sucks to be you, but you had like five chances already, eat your crumbs."

Just to point something out, Danmarc, in socialism it is not for a party to bestow power but it is for the people to rise up and take it.

You see, BG, in socialism there is an even smaller ruling class that is in power, that is truly stealing from the people. There is no true non-governing socialism, only corrupt, communist societies where the people are in no control at all, the government feeds them, employs them, not giving the people credit for being smart enough to succeed on their own. The socialism you speak of has not and will not happen, it is but an unattainable dream... Imagine if you will capitalism started to crumble, there would be a ruling party that took over, may try to instill socialist-type policies, but ultimately would never give up precious control... this could never happen..


You're doing the same thing, again! You're just making up an enemy that's easy to face and defeat. Nobody cares about that! It's like playing Doom and sucking, so going on a level editor and making a new one with only one of those lame fireball chucking spikey dudes and giving yourself a BFG and a minigun at the start.

And What's wrong with Communism? Nothing except Human Nature won't allow people to be live that way. There will always be a greedy bastard who will want more.


Why won't "human nature" let people live that way? I don't see why "human nature" whould stop people from doing their job in exchange for others doing theirs, it's already been quisi-proven before, because you could sort of think of it as a huge bartering system with people doing their jobs in exchange for others doing theirs, and anyway there is NO SUCH THING as "human nature".

It's hard to condemn either Capitalism or Socialism in today's world. I mean, for the US, though not a true capitalist society, has worked well for a number of years, and no one has seen any 'harsh', so to speak, affects from it. Though, there are countries like Spain who are more Socialist and have not seen any 'harsh' affects from this type of economy.

I agree with Capitalism because it allows competition and the idea that only the so-called best will come out on top. However, it doesn't seem fair that the little guy gets written out of the picture, which is why Socialism is a nice concept.

All in all, bascially, I think the success of Capitalism or Socialism has a lot to deal with the history of a reigion, the people of the reigion, and the culture. Neither one is neccessarily a bad thing.

Bah, we need a government controlled industry where the powerful clearly rule over the poor! Anyway, I am for state-controlled industry and incentive programs to work(pay increases for harder jobs or good work). Socialism would be the best thing as I think that Capitalist systems tend to focus too much on marketing stupid consumer goods when we could amassing capital goods. However, of course socialism is easily corrupted because I also believe in totalitarianism so anyway, all hail the motherland!

"You're doing the same thing, again! You're just making up an enemy that's easy to face and defeat. Nobody cares about that! It's like playing Doom and sucking, so going on a level editor and making a new one with only one of those lame fireball chucking spikey dudes and giving yourself a BFG and a minigun at the start." --Beth Gellert

Your rationale is that I am making up an enemy... why is this? Because there is no true socialist state. What you speak of is make-believe. There have been centuries of opportunities for this to happen, does it?? No... instead a dictator or ruling body comes to power, inforces its rules on the people, taking all utility for the "bettering of the cause" which in turn means lining their own pocket. The sole job of the leader is then to stay in power and suck the life out of the people" Of course there is no real enemy for capitalists to defeat, all those opposing capitalism finally began to wake up, the enemy is no more, only in those BG REM waves....

It seems most people here agree with a sort of mix between capitalism and socialism, either way I'm still communist. RED TO THE END!

"It's like playing Doom and sucking, so going on a level editor and making a new one with only one of those lame fireball chucking spikey dudes and giving yourself a BFG and a minigun at the start." I must admit, you are most entertaining my friend........ I enjoy getting an opportunity to converse with you..

Your rationale is that I am making up an enemy... why is this? Because there is no true socialist state. What you speak of is make-believe. There have been centuries of opportunities for this to happen, does it?? No... instead a dictator or ruling body comes to power, inforces its rules on the people, taking all utility for the "bettering of the cause" which in turn means lining their own pocket. The sole job of the leader is then to stay in power and suck the life out of the people" Of course there is no real enemy for capitalists to defeat, all those opposing capitalism finally began to wake up, the enemy is no more, only in those BG REM waves....

It's not make believe. Some of Europe is under a Social Democratic System.

My premise as well. In Socialism you can strive to be as worse as you possibly can and make the same as a determined lawyer or doctor, that's f*cked up.
That's communism. Not socialism. Socialism pays you for what you do. The government just runs the business.

Human nature does exist. People are innately greedy, that is part of their nature. We can teach people to be less greedy, but most people are greedy and seek to get more while giving less. Communism does not work because people at the top try to exploit those below them and those at the bottom do not feel inclined to work if it does not matter if the product is good or bad or even dangerous considering that at one time television explosions were a common cause of fires. If we had a very diligent and moral society, the we could make a communistic or socialistic society work where everyone works for the common good and no one desires more than they receive.

Your rationale is that I am making up an enemy... why is this? Because there is no true socialist state. What you speak of is make-believe. There have been centuries of opportunities for this to happen, does it?? No... instead a dictator or ruling body comes to power, inforces its rules on the people, taking all utility for the "bettering of the cause" which in turn means lining their own pocket. The sole job of the leader is then to stay in power and suck the life out of the people" Of course there is no real enemy for capitalists to defeat, all those opposing capitalism finally began to wake up, the enemy is no more, only in those BG REM waves....


This thread is not about the politics of national dictatorship, I'm fairly sure the first post was pretty clear about that. If we were get into that, I'm sure that some capitalists out there would join me in saying that the same is true of capitalism... that it has never been sustained.

Socialism has been demonstrated in many respects, at various times.

The proletarians of Paris... amidst the failures and treasons of the ruling classes, have understood that the hour has struck for them to save the situation by taking into their own hands the direction of public affairs ... They have understood that it is their imperious duty, and their absolute right, to render themselves masters of their own destinies, by seizing upon the governmental power...

Moving on, then... the sort of criticisms you're throwing at socialism are equally true in capitalism, if not worse, by and large. On a large scale, it goes to hell and opportunists seize power and millions die while billions suffer in poverty. You can't sit there and throw those stones at the socialist greenhouse without at least casting a glance around at our own dirty windopanes, mate.

Human nature does exist. People are innately greedy, that is part of their nature. We can teach people to be less greedy, but most people are greedy and seek to get more while giving less. Communism does not work because people at the top try to exploit those below them and those at the bottom do not feel inclined to work if it does not matter if the product is good or bad or even dangerous considering that at one time television explosions were a common cause of fires. If we had a very diligent and moral society, the we could make a communistic or socialistic society work where everyone works for the common good and no one desires more than they receive.

Point of fact, there are no people at the top in a communist society. Communist societies, are, by definition, classless.

You do make a point BG, which I respect... Given American capitalism is by no means perfect, there are loopholes in any such system, but by and large the system works. China has been making strides as well with its quasi-capitalist approach in the past 20 years..

((check your telegrams when you get a sec))

Yes but every model of communism has someone at the top and that person can be corrupt. Of course it is meant to be classless, but people are corrupt and get money through means that are not meant to occur. Classes are not meant to exist in pure communism however because of human nature classes will probably always exist so long as some people can get more power than others.

You do make a point BG, which I respect... Given American capitalism is by no means perfect, there are loopholes in any such system, but by and large the system works. China has been making strides as well with its quasi-capitalist approach in the past 20 years..

((check your telegrams when you get a sec))


Heh, you big charmer, you. Still, when the page was first opening, I thought it was, "Most Attractive..." and was a touch taken-aback ;)

Anyway, yes, the system works by some definitions. There's big numbers attached to bank accounts and big towers climbing into the sky, often for no good reason, and lots of whizz-bang weapons blasting about the place, but... I'm inclined to say, "so what?"

I think that you would like socialism. I think that the only people who disliked it would be -initially- a few (but by no means all) of the 'most successful' capitalists, and those who really didn't want to work (like me), who might find it harder to bum around doing nothing.

I think some of you are having a hard time differentiating between an econmic system and a political system. Remeber, it wasn't the economic system of the USSR/PRC that was evil, it's the brutal police-state dictatorship. And Social Darwinism is, IMHO, inhumane. One can work hard all one's life, and still "lose". If hard work was all it took, there'd ba a lot more billionaires. (and yes, I know there are lazy people who don't try, but laziness is not the root cause of all poverty.)

Wrong. If anything Capitalism protects the rights of the few, making sure only a few have all the money while many others are poor.
It does no such thing. It allows some people to acquire large amounts of wealth, but not all the wealth. Capitalism hopefully allows for competitors to enter the markets and challenge the current producers.

Yes but every model of communism has someone at the top and that person can be corrupt. Of course it is meant to be classless, but people are corrupt and get money through means that are not meant to occur. Classes are not meant to exist in pure communism however because of human nature classes will probably always exist so long as some people can get more power than others.

Granted, but what you are running into is a defininitional paradox. If a society has classes, it isn't communism.

The twisted mockeries of communism imposed on the world by Stalin and Mao can no more be considered examples of communism than the Greyhound Bus service can be considered and example of a dog.

Yes but every model of communism has someone at the top and that person can be corrupt. Of course it is meant to be classless, but people are corrupt and get money through means that are not meant to occur. Classes are not meant to exist in pure communism however because of human nature classes will probably always exist so long as some people can get more power than others.


This continues to be the most common and worst argument since, "I know you are, but what am I?"

I think some of you are having a hard time differentiating between an econmic system and a political system. Remeber, it wasn't the economic system of the USSR/PRC that was evil, it's the brutal police-state dictatorship. And Social Darwinism is, IMHO, inhumane. One can work hard all one's life, and still "lose".
So, a system that costs thirty million people their lives, such as in the great leap forward, is not evil?

No, it is not communism.

Socialism - but with some caveats.

In principle there's absolutely nothing wrong with capitalism. However, in the absence of government regulation (in order to stop blatantly exploitative behaviour on the part of corporations) and as it stands today, capitalism is not 'survival of the fittest' at all. It's 'survival of the greediest and most ruthless, particularly those who by accident of birth are given the best opportunities to exercise that greed and ruthlessness'.

There are many forms of socialism (and communism). And of course people who study harder and work harder should have access to greater remuneration. However the system as it stands provides little *opportunity* for many individuals to achieve these positions, and allows the wealthy to exploit them. A form of capitalism which prevented exploitative behaviour - and actually carried out appropriate punishments for corporations who committed it - would be fine by even little ol' socialist me.

Granted, but what you are running into is a defininitional paradox. If a society has classes, it isn't communism.

The twisted mockeries of communism imposed on the world by Stalin and Mao can no more be considered examples of communism than the Greyhound Bus service can be considered and example of a dog.
I think it's more of a statement that people will always naturally divide themselves up. It's a survival mechanism. People group up with people like themselves. If you believe otherwise you are deluding yourself.

It does no such thing. It allows some people to acquire large amounts of wealth, but not all the wealth. Capitalism hopefully allows for competitors to enter the markets and challenge the current producers.
But it rarely happens that way, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

"I think that you would like socialism. I think that the only people who disliked it would be -initially- a few (but by no means all) of the 'most successful' capitalists, and those who really didn't want to work (like me), who might find it harder to bum around doing nothing." I am by no means attacking the concepts of socialism, nor the writings of Karl Marx (except possibly the community wives portion which is a little weird) In fact, I have been reading a copy of Capital in recent weeks since school is out, and find his views interesting, albeit a little too utopian. Also, I can't help but question the initiative to work.. If everyone is taking care of everyone, the whole social safety net is all encompassing, so if one wanted to be a lazy lima bean (like BG hehehe) there would really be no problem in doing so, as you would make the same as everyone else, and someone else would pick up the slack... That or the whole system would collapse under its collective lazy weight.. as no one wants to pass up the free portion of the buy one get one meal..

((and besides, how could I judge the attractiveness of BG, as she has never graced me with her goddess picture, even after turning on my country in our little game))

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" -Some person whoms name I do not remember.

I'm opposed to captalism mainly because it allows for the rich to become rich at the poor's expense by exploiting the poor. As Beth Gellert says, the realization of one's dream is another nightmare. I know this will make me less credible by quoting a musician but Trent Reznor says in one of his songs: "Got money? Let's go dancing on the backs of the bruised."

I'm sorry if i confuse socialism and communism but in socialism I think, all land inheritance rules are gone. This will resolve conflicts among people arguing over what should be theirs. For instance, when my grandfather died, he left his family farm to be split up amongst his children. What nobody knew was that my grandfather had had a son with another woman in his home country. This man wanted a slice of the farm, causing a lawsuit. We must realize that land is land and it belongs to nobody.

Another thing that I am unsure of is abolition of divsion of countries and regions. Patriotism and pride eventually lead to war.

(Sorry if this post is irrelevalant or false)

I think it's more of a statement that people will always naturally divide themselves up. It's a survival mechanism. People group up with people like themselves. If you believe otherwise you are deluding yourself.

You can divide yourself up by more than just class. If you weren't talking about a society without class distinction, then nobody said anything to contradict you.

As I will always argue, socialism is just monopolism by another name. The same problems that plague monopolies will plague socialism. Be they over- or under-supply of goods, lack of competition to force greater efficiency and quality, and all such similar things. I'd far prefer a market economy.

Now, I'm not totally happy with the current oligopolistic system we have, but it's better than socialism.

So, a system that costs thirty million people their lives, such as in the great leap forward, is not evil?

Again, that was mostly a political decision, and a monumentally bad one, by Mao. "to each occording to his needs, from each according to his ability" is not inherently evil. The implementation of it was.

Capitalism hopefully allows for competitors to enter the markets and challenge the current producers.


And how does common ownership and management of economic concerns prevent this?

A socialist wants to start up a new company in a socialist economy. She gathers around a few interested friends, some perhaps having savings (though as we're not being terribly specific here I maybe shouldn't assume too much about the status of savings and generally holding on to currency and not making use of it within this theoretical society, we'll just go with it in the absence of better information), and they roll-up their sleeves and set to it. Maybe there is a national provident fund to which this assembly of workers can apply for aid, but that's another wildcard, I suppose.

You can divide yourself up by more than just class. If you weren't talking about a society without class distinction, then nobody said anything to contradict you.
Perhaps I shall clear myself up. People will divide themselves up by things they are similar. Such as job and education level. As time wears on, short of goverment coercion, they will offer their services to people of their own class more readily because they will be familiar with them and their life situations. And class exists again.

Well, that and the fact that China of the time had a spectacularly crappy agricultural system that could produce mass famines at the drop of a hat. Quite frankly the deaths in the great leap forward could have occured at any time, it just happened to fall under Mao's watch.

Before posting my opinion on the issue at hand I must warn any and all of you that I have no experiance with Socialism, as I was not raised in a Socialist State, and likewise, have made no attempt to surround myself in one. I have read up quite a deal on communism, but again, the authors spoke from a Capitalist standpoint, other than raw quotes translated fairly.

I have spent my short life, in it's entirety, in a Capitalist society, and have seen both the highest (in my opinion) and lowest points, from a personal place. I was, at one point, able to want something, and on my whim purchase it; the American dream, so to speak. I have also been homeless, hungry (and for much more than a simple meal), and virtually helpless, but never saw myself as trapt under the rest of my society.

When I was at that lowest point for over three months, wearing the same clothes, scrounging for something, anything to eat, and literally begging for a job, not once did I blame those around me soaring toward the top. I blamed myself, because it was my fault.

I eventually found work. I am a Childcare Provider working Eight and one half hour days for minimum wage (7.35 per hour minus taxes in my state). In laymen's terms I watch kids. Now, that may not be enough money to run out and buy a Porche when I feel the want, or get me enough notice to sip martinis with Tom Hanks, but it does get me enough for MY house payments, for MY car payments, and for MY meals. Nothing feels as good as owning what you have, for working your ass off and getting SOMETHING in return, and that, in my opinion, is the American dream, and the core of Capitalism.

This is why I believe Capitalism will survive the ages: People want their own. They don't want everything, they don't want what's yours. They want their own, and they're willing to do anything they must for it. This is why Capitalism is a victim of crime, because the criminals are desperate, yet lack the moral (or perhaps decancy) to pick themselves up.

Socialism, from what I've read recently, is currently suffering, due to a lack of effort on the part of the working citizens. Perhaps this is because they sense they are not getting what is their own, but rather something else. I am not one to say, I can only say I have been born into a Capitalist environment, and have learned to survive in one, and would not trade it for anything, even if I were somehow ecconomically better off.

--Miyage

Again, that was mostly a political decision, and a monumentally bad one, by Mao. "to each occording to his needs, from each according to his ability" is not inherently evil. The implementation of it was.
I far prefer "from each as he chooses, to each as he is chosen," free will inherent. I can do what I want with I have, and people can give to me as they will.

But, to each according to his needs and such, I work hard for what I have, is it someone else's right to lay claim to the fruits of my labor? I think not. That is wrong.

However is it right for people to starve? Let's assume Miyage had not found a job. What then?

Well, that and the fact that China of the time had a spectacularly crappy agricultural system that could produce mass famines at the drop of a hat. Quite frankly the deaths in the great leap forward could have occured at any time, it just happened to fall under Mao's watch.
It also was driven by the sudden emphasis on forced industrialisation. Such as the emphasis on having the stupid little blast furnaces in the backyards to produce the "turds" of iron.

No, the great leap forward was responsible for the deaths of thirty million, not pure chance.

Perhaps I shall clear myself up. People will divide themselves up by things they are similar. Such as job and education level. As time wears on, short of goverment coercion, they will offer their services to people of their own class more readily because they will be familiar with them and their life situations. And class exists again.
I disagree, education level should not pose much of a barrier without capitalist roadblocks that prevent people from getting higher education levels today. Further, your model would work if it were not overly simplistic because the world is far more complicated than professions and education levels. People will divide themselves up by family, religion, hobby, interest, history, geography, life outlook, etc. The more factors that go into these divisions, the less likely any one can come to be a driving force of domination over the rest. The more complex the network becomes, the harder it is to impose a class structure, particularly when you cut wealth and property out of the equation.

Oh, well, for the record, Danmarc, I am not a Marxist, if that matters to your position vis-a-vis myself, so I'm not going to argue you on that. I've never read a complete work by Marx, so I really couldn't.

However is it right for people to starve? Let's assume Miyage had not found a job. What then?
Go visit a charity. There's plenty of them.

And how does common ownership and management of economic concerns prevent this?

A socialist wants to start up a new company in a socialist economy. She gathers around a few interested friends, some perhaps having savings (though as we're not being terribly specific here I maybe shouldn't assume too much about the status of savings and generally holding on to currency and not making use of it within this theoretical society, we'll just go with it in the absence of better information), and they roll-up their sleeves and set to it. Maybe there is a national provident fund to which this assembly of workers can apply for aid, but that's another wildcard, I suppose.
Now I'm just confused. pseudo-competitionist socialism?

And how does common ownership and management of economic concerns prevent this?

A socialist wants to start up a new company in a socialist economy. She gathers around a few interested friends, some perhaps having savings (though as we're not being terribly specific here I maybe shouldn't assume too much about the status of savings and generally holding on to currency and not making use of it within this theoretical society, we'll just go with it in the absence of better information), and they roll-up their sleeves and set to it. Maybe there is a national provident fund to which this assembly of workers can apply for aid, but that's another wildcard, I suppose.
Now I'm just confused. pseudo-competitionist socialism?

It also was driven by the sudden emphasis on forced industrialisation. Such as the emphasis on having the stupid little blast furnaces in the backyards to produce the "turds" of iron.

No, the great leap forward was responsible for the deaths of thirty million, not pure chance.

That certainly didn't help but quite frankly there is more to the story. Such a system could be supported under modern agricultural practices where a single farmer can feed nearly a hundred and fifty people. Their agricultural system could scarcely support the population in good years. Massive famines were commonplace on bad years. One rogue blizzard and you could have all the deaths of the great leap forward devoid of any maoist interference.

Go visit a charity. There's plenty of them.
It's just not reliable enough. Government aid is much more reliable and humanitarian.

That certainly didn't help but quite frankly there is more to the story. Such a system could be supported under modern agricultural practices where a single farmer can feed nearly a hundred and fifty people. Their agricultural system could scarcely support the population in good years. Massive famines were commonplace on bad years. One rogue blizzard and you could have all the deaths of the great leap forward devoid of any maoist interference.
But the great leap forward program is by-and-large credited for the thirty million deaths. The few westerners lead through the PRC during the era were lead through Potemkin village type setups. The fact that it could have happened by chance is irrelevant. The fact that it was caused by the program is relevant.

there is NO SUCH THING as "human nature".

yes theres a band called human nature

Why can't we have some of each?
75% Capitalism.
25% Socialism.
Can't we all get along?
:fluffle:

I agree. But isn't that what our economy is now? US isn't pure capitalism, if not it'll be Lasseiz faire.

It's just not reliable enough. Government aid is much more reliable and humanitarian.
What? Government aid is more reliable and humanitarian? How is forcing other people to give up the fruits of their labor more humanitarian? How is it more reliable?

If I remember my statistics correctly, the people of the United States give a large amount of money to charities each year. In fact, excluding disaster additions, the American people give an amount equal to 50% of the governments defense budget to charities every year. That's far more than the amount the government gives.

Beyond that, my experience with the workings of government on very ground-level issues has led me to believe that on the smallest levels, the government is horrendously inefficient. But I'm sure it wouldn't be so in your perfect world.

Look under any system with normal humans classes will form. Classes will form between people who are similar in job type and control over society. Eventually one or multiple classes will become more powerful than others due to greed and opportunity. The problem with communism is it requires a population that is completely devoted to the ideal, or a very small group to work with. Corruption is easier to spot the smaller the society. A classless society would be an ideal, and would require a strong belief in ascetism, but it is unlikely to happen in the future unless technology makes people equal in total ability(the retard working at mcdonalds is not equal to the shrewd CEO, the brilliant physicist or the charismatic leader).

Now I'm just confused. pseudo-competitionist socialism?

Well, I'm asking why on earth putting companies in the hands of the workers, disposing of management and absentee or individualist ownership, which would be the socialistic thing to do, would prevent healthy competition.
That's what I've been getting at with the idea of people fighting made-up enemies by the idea that some autocratic government has to control everything and prevent competition. What does that have to do with popular control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange? I mean, is it absolutely nothing? Yeah? 's what I thought.

there is NO SUCH THING as "human nature".
Tell that to science.

Almost all current psychological evidence shows that 50-60% of our behavior is influenced/controlled by our genetics. Hence, human nature. Survival skills. Fighting for limited resources.

I far prefer "from each as he chooses, to each as he is chosen," free will inherent. I can do what I want with I have, and people can give to me as they will.

But, to each according to his needs and such, I work hard for what I have, is it someone else's right to lay claim to the fruits of my labor? I think not. That is wrong.
__________________


I would ask, what is the incentive to give anything? Capitalsim, at least as it is practiced in the U.S., encourages quite the oposite. And in capitalism, someone is laying claim to the fruits of your labor -- someone is making millions right now off work that you do.

(on a personal note, my 100th post *WOOT!*)

Tell that to science.

Almost all current psychological evidence shows that 50-60% of our behavior is influenced/controlled by our genetics. Hence, human nature. Survival skills. Fighting for limited resources.


Yeah, and most of it [human nature] is geared towards not screwing over our own speicies. I mean, sociopaths aside.

Well, I'm asking why on earth putting companies in the hands of the workers, disposing of management and absentee or individualist ownership, which would be the socialistic thing to do, would prevent healthy competition.
Because people don't just "work together."

Yeah, and most of it [human nature] is geared towards not screwing over our own speicies. I mean, sociopaths aside.
Actually human nature is geared towards ensuring our individual survival. Which sometimes involves screwing over others, and some other times doesn't.

Miyage would not have starved, that much is for certain. You see, even Capitalists have hearts. Someone, somewhere, would have given me a helping hand, a small ammount to survive to the next day. That may not be enough in some eyes, but to me, that's all I need.

In Capitalism you are forced to fight, yes, but not necisarrily another. Sometimes it's meerly the odds. If I would not have found a job it would have been my fault. Perhaps for those three months my standards were too high, placed falsely, or perhaps I was simply applying at the wrong establishments.

You see in Capitalism, and this is what few realize, the big corporations don't rule the people. The people rule the big corporations. If people didn't like Walmart enough, they could boycott it by refusing to employ themselves there, causing the company to die shortly.

Capitalism is a symbiotic relationship between the corporation and the public. I finally looked somewhere below par. Obviously if no one wanted to GO there, they had no one willing to work there, which meant they needed me (theoretically) more than I needed them. They almost HAD to hire me. They survive another day by keeping their doors open, and I survive another day by earning the bare minimum of what they are required to give me. We both win.

--Miyage

Actually human nature is geared towards ensuring our individual survival. Which sometimes involves screwing over others, and some other times doesn't.


Uh hu, and as makes sense, at its most basic, screwing-over other humans is not the default setting, and seeing another expressing pain is a powerful thing, and co-operation is the order of business (or we'd never have developed noteworthy intelligence anyway).

But I suppose I'm not much interested in arguing that, as it's not going to change anyway. Mh.

As to people not just working together, I don't know, that doesn't seem worth replying to.

I would ask, what is the incentive to give anything? Capitalsim, at least as it is practiced in the U.S., encourages quite the oposite. And in capitalism, someone is laying claim to the fruits of your labor -- someone is making millions right now off work that you do.
Capitalism encourages people to not put in effort?

Oh wait, you're buying into the theory that labor is the root of all value. Labor is only one resource amongst several, and perhaps one of the most common resources available. Entrepeneuership is quite rare, as per the fact that entrepeneuers take much greater risks than employees do, as such, they are rewarded more.

This is the thing. The strength of a nation lies in a strong middle class.

Capitalism allows the middle class to reach it's full potential, but at the same time, stratifies it, or in other words, pushing part of it up and the rest down into the lower class.

Socilism recreates the middle class, pulling down the upper, and pushing up the lower. But at the same time it doesn't allow the middle class to reach potential (who want's to work all their life and know they are never going to get anywhere). If the middle class loeses it's fervor the country will bog down and become weak.


In conclusion you ideally need a balance. People should be able to get rich.... to a point. If you get too rich you end up hurting society by hording the wealth that should be used for other things then buying your self 12 mansions. Socialist values such as free education, social securtiy and other things that allow the lower class to reach middle clas status and then contribute to society should be adopted as well.

free enterprise is esential. communism should be avoided.

But the great leap forward program is by-and-large credited for the thirty million deaths. The few westerners lead through the PRC during the era were lead through Potemkin village type setups. The fact that it could have happened by chance is irrelevant. The fact that it was caused by the program is relevant.

On the contrary, both are relevant. The fact their agricultural system was in such poor shape at the time may make it a bad time to try the theory out, however, the resulting failure of the theory under these conditions cannot be a measure of the theories failure. Instead it speaks to the failure of their agricultural system.

Uh hu, and as makes sense, at its most basic, screwing-over other humans is not the default setting, and seeing another expressing pain is a powerful thing, and co-operation is the order of business (or we'd never have developed noteworthy intelligence anyway).

But I suppose I'm not much interested in arguing that, as it's not going to change anyway. Mh.
If someone is suffering of course I'm going to help them, but I do not believe that it is right or just to force someone to help another person.


As to people not just working together, I don't know, that doesn't seem worth replying to.
Why not? Because it's true? People only work together because they stand to gain something from it, be it that nice warm fuzzy feeling you get when you volunteer, or...

ugggh, this has descended into a damn arguement about human nature again. I'm tired. Goodnight.

free education, minimum wages, leagal labor unions... good.

welfare is ok, to a piont. more important is subsidized low income howsing and free educations.

I see none of you fanatics dare to challenge my power at reasoning.

Well, state controlled industry has its advantages. Instead of competing against outsiders and even using dirty methods we fight to do better. Anyway I agree that education should be free or cheap(college level, I believe that pre-college level education should be mandatory), it is a good that benefits society and the person who receives it. I really am a totalitarian and not a socialist(I do not necessarily think that everyone should receive the same pay no matter what) or a capitalist(I disagree with consumerism).

If someone is suffering of course I'm going to help them, but I do not believe that it is right or just to force someone to help another person.

That seems like a pretty wild tangent, but okay... good. And right, nobody should force anybody to do anything. But again, I'm not sure what it has to do with anything.


Why not? Because it's true? People only work together because they stand to gain something from it, be it that nice warm fuzzy feeling you get when you volunteer, or...

ugggh, this has descended into a damn arguement about human nature again. I'm tired. Goodnight.

Mhm. So yeah, people work together.

[scratches head]

Anyway, I think you've got the right idea about bed.

...unfortunately I'm full of sugar [runs off...and back...and around a bit]

Human nature must be overcome.

[I am] not a socialist(I do not necessarily think that everyone should receive the same pay no matter what).


Well, socialism does not dictate that all should receive the same pay. Some theorists have proposed wage equalisation in a number of different forms, but not all have, and as I say, socialism basically does not require anything of the sort, so you're in luck, you can be a socialist.

I can be a socialist! REALLY!! This is the happiest day of my life. Anyway, I just thought it was funny that the original poster of this threat attributed freedom of religion and rights to all people to capitalism yet tells people to research their facts before opening their "head-hole". Those ideas do not really belong to any socio-economic system and are really just a set of values. I do think that consumerism is a threat to society that is created by our capitalism and the reason I think that is that material possessions in my mind are not what make people happy, instead it is something greater like on those christmas specials, yet capitalism profits off of these people and their illusion that money buys happiness and that happiness comes from the Zippo product.

Socialistic Capitalism, or Capitalistic Socialism, yeah.

A balance is what works best. State Controlled industries can be efficient, but usually at the cost of the common worker. Also, they do not wish to spend the money to try and allow that worker to become anything other then poor. the rest of society benifits but the poor lose their chance at becoming middle class.

Human nature must be overcome.
Yes it does but to do so is incredibly difficult. After all it is hard to change a person's nature and to do so on a grand enough scale to run an economy would require massive education and re-education programs. I admit though that in order to build a perfect society, I think that freedom will have to be sacrificed in order to make people more compliant and homogenous and therefore able to act more in unison and be happier under similar conditions(like the religious right is but of course saner).

A balance is what works best. State Controlled industries can be efficient, but usually at the cost of the common worker. Also, they do not wish to spend the money to try and allow that worker to become anything other then poor. the rest of society benifits but the poor lose their chance at becoming middle class.
I thought that most government jobs were cushy or at least for workers of low skill. I mean the government is the one that imposes minimum wage and all the other work laws.

Capitalism encourages people to not put in effort?

Oh wait, you're buying into the theory that labor is the root of all value. Labor is only one resource amongst several, and perhaps one of the most common resources available. Entrepeneuership is quite rare, as per the fact that entrepeneuers take much greater risks than employees do, as such, they are rewarded more.

No, I was saying that capitalism encourages people to be greedy and not give to others. Life becomes this Darwinian struggle where it's always "fuck your buddy" time. And I dont buy the arguement that entreprenuers "take all the risks so they deserve more". That's a convenient excuse to screw someone over.

Yes it does but to do so is incredibly difficult. After all it is hard to change a person's nature and to do so on a grand enough scale to run an economy would require massive education and re-education programs. I admit though that in order to build a perfect society, I think that freedom will have to be sacrificed in order to make people more compliant and homogenous and therefore able to act more in unison and be happier under similar conditions(like the religious right is but of course saner).

Freedom should never be sacrificed, ever. If it was done as you say then the government would own you and as soon as someone greedy or selfish is elected to government the entire country is screwed. It doesn't matter how good the intentions of the founders are, unless they run it as a dictatorship they will eventualy lose power to someone charismic but evil. Even if they do run a dictatorship they cannot live forever and someone vicious and ruthless is likely to replace them. As they are more likely to take any measure they can to seize power. If they want fairness the democratic process is no good at stoping assholes from being elected. With such power given to the government it just takes one asshole to destroy the system. I would much rather the power is shared between different corporations and the government, not putting all my eggs in one basket as such.

In capitalism, freedom is not as important as the illusion of freedom. If a sled dog can be made to think that it is pulling its own weight and not a portion of the sled, it might lament its perceived maladies but will continue forward anyways. The onerous rider remains unseen and never becomes a target of disgruntlement. And the dog will never figure out why it is so difficult to get anywhere.

It would be disastrous if one day the free world were to wake up and realize that it really wasn't all that free. The clockwork mechanics of the system, forged from blissful ignorance, would rust over with bitterness and disillusionment. The vital catalyst that once drove progress would disappear, taking the fruits of labor with it and leaving but a naked and feeble lie.

Let's hope that never happens.

everyone sucks, even barter, but I pick the lesser evil in capitalism because it isnt govermentally controlled

And in apitalism, it's business controlled. Are they so much more trustworthy?

EXAMPLE: An inefecient company closes, and there is a temporary drop in the Towns unenployment levels, and say, 20 people lose their jobs. But a better, more effecient company comes along, not only making better products, but hiring the workers of the last company, but hiring even more people. As the people in the company work harder they make better product, make the Town's living standards go uo, and propeling the workers up the command chain, thus fulfilling the individual humans wants and needs, and making the town go up a notch.


Remember that when you have to close your business because another country, with a lower living standard, pays it workers less than you are able to pay yours. It's not always efficiency that makes things matter but what is payed to workers.
Guess you'll be setting up your business in China?

2 days, 110 answers, 8 pages.

Thank you all. Most of my threads have jut been banned

Christian Socialism! The only true, compassionate and worthwhile system. When Jesus returns, he'll show us all how it's done to perfection! GOD bless!

I support a theory of operating "somewhere between the two".

Capitalism is the BEST way for a country to function efficiently. It gives people incentives to better themselves, and if they have intelligence and drive, the ability to do so.

However, companies if totally uncontrolled will ALWAYS (well, except for a few philanthropists, although they seem to have died out sometime in the 20th century) screw over their employees in the name of profits. Therefore, some socialist elements to protect the basic rights of workers, and also to provide them with their basic needs (e.g. healthcare, education) is needed. People shouldn't have to pay for their health.

So yes, 75% capitalism, 25% socialism, as someone early in this thread said.

Communsim gives people no reason to work hard. Beacause they know that if they are lazy they will still be taken care of. Lol...why would the lazy be taken care of? Who told you that?

EXAMPLE: Bill Gates made $90 billion. He gave over $30 billion away to charity, and started his own charity.So? $60 billion is still a hell of a lot to have...more than many people could possibly spend in a lifetime.

Other points:
"Communism goes against human nature." There are two responses to this, depending on whether or not the person making the argument believes human nature is malleable. If it is, then people can be taught to be communist, and to believe in its ideals. If the person making the argument doesn't believe it is, then it doesn't matter, as most people would benefit from a total redistribution of wealth. Therefore it would be in their best interest to have communism, and wouldn't be altruistic at all. Of course, altruism would help in communism, but isn't necessary.

"The government controls everything in communism." This is true, as the 'government' is a direct democratic system, made up of all of the people in the society. All of the people in the society control everything. However, there are no "people at the top" to control things.

I will make more arguments, depending on how long this thread lasts.

Mix between the two. Pure capitalism can only lead to a lot of wasted talent (The poor family who can't afford to educate their potential genius child, who eventually dies of an easily preventable disease/starvation) and corporations being ultra powerful. Socialism is needed to ensure at least a degreee of equality of opportunity.

Enough of this freedom and individualist bullshit. Those apologists who advocate Social Darwinism are echoing Nazi tones by suggesting that "it is the right of the strong to dominate the weak" - the ultimate form of dictatorship.

Capitalism, was in fact never intended for individual rights or freedoms. If you speak of Neo-Liberalist Capitalism - it was first introduced by General Pinochet to break up the unions, students, and democratic resistance to his dictatorship.

The reason why the rest of the world adopted Neo-liberalism was that the elites realised that they could make more money by allowing corporates to take over roles formerly the function of the state, eliminating the need to deal with obstinant, moralistic public officials, which the corporates would not employ.

Capitalism in fact has always been counter-democratic, as it speaks against equality and social justice - which arguably are the primary reasons for democracy. The 'freedoms' capitalists seek already exist in countries often denounced by neo-conservatives, e.g. Saudi Arabia.

Western democracy, in many cases - is a sham. So how is it any more legitimate than socialism? Its not. Capitalism just wanted it more - for now.

As to argue for socialism...

There is little reason why government controlled companies cannot be taught to be efficent, albeit in a socially responsible manner. In fact, you could have government controlled companies competing against each other in the same manner that the private sector now dominates.

Obviously in small scale areas, it would be more prudent initially to have private enterprise, for example small scale farming. Until the people see the benefits of co-operative farming in its own right, they should not be forcibly collectivized. However, you can hardly become a multi-millionaire through farming or small scale manufacturing or service industries.

Socialism does not teach total economic equality, rather seeks to address the mass income inequality in capitalist societies. There would still be incentive to work in socialist societies - you still need to work to survive, and there are still bosses who can fire you if your production isn't reaching required levels. In fact, there would be more pressure on you from your work buddies to work harder so everyone could have a bit extra to put away for a foreign trip.

Society can be altruistic, if emphasis on moral values returned to education. Why do you think the majority of intellectuals and academics pre-1940 were leftist and Soviet sympathizers? Worshipping money and individual progress have become our morals now.

No, I was saying that capitalism encourages people to be greedy and not give to others. Life becomes this Darwinian struggle where it's always "fuck your buddy" time. And I dont buy the arguement that entreprenuers "take all the risks so they deserve more". That's a convenient excuse to screw someone over.

lol. You don't buy the argument? How do you figure? An entreprenuer puts everything he has on the line, most of what he's not spent on bills and such, to create a company, from scratch, which he has to manage and direct in all ways, has to make sure he finds good staff for, has to make sure he finds good supplies for, has to market his product, research not only his own business and target but all his competitors, has to learn more laws and statutes than is fair to expect an attorney to know (Or has to expend more capital and hire a (Hopefully) competent attorney), and does all this with no guarantee that it will result in a succesful business?

You're telling me this person deserves the same reward as the guy who walks in from 9 to 5 and lifts some boxes around, takes a few tallies of stock, and doesn't really have to worry about most of that stuff in any capacity? Even if the company goes down, for the most part the workers have only lost one job. The entreprenuer could very easily have bankrupted himself and his family.

You're telling me, this guy is screwing people over, despite the obvious massive disparity in investment and responsibility?

lolz.

"The government controls everything in communism." This is true, as the 'government' is a direct democratic system, made up of all of the people in the society. All of the people in the society control everything. However, there are no "people at the top" to control things.

Come back when a succesful, democratic communist nation has not only formed, but has existed for some decades (At the very least, seeing as capitalism has been working quite well for centuries now.), and we staunch capitalists will probably take a lot more note of you, and actually believe that. As it is, seems to us that a ruling individual or class takes power. But conveniently enough, failed Communism isn't Communism, so it should never be regarded as a failure.

Socialism is the first step on a road to a dictatorship.

The rights that capitalism is concerned with, first and formost, are property rigths -- the right to keep your stuff. Not a bad idea, in and of itself (although just dealt a serious blow in the USA via that recent Supreme Court decision). Personal freedoms? Not so much. The poor deserve to be poor, right? I mean, all poor people are lazy, right? The system is fair... if your name is Kennedy or Bush.

Your (rather sarcastic) point is incorrect, in itself. Only the poor who stay poor are lazy. In capitalist society there is always room to go up, you just have to have the want to get there. I was homeless for three months. The only reason it wasn't longer is becasue a month ago I busted my ass to get a job. Now I bust my ass at the job for under $1000 per month -- barely enough for rent and bills, food is a luxury.

That may seem 'poor' to you, but at least it's something, and the pay will continue to rise as I continue to bust my ass. In capitalist society the hard working are rewarded much more hansomely than the lazy.

In Russia a couple years ago they found some piping that had been done when they were still relying on capitalist workers... The jobs had been done so poorly half the pipes were at that point rusted out due to lazily done connections when they should have lasted a good ten more years. They hired a capitalist company to repair them.

The DOWNFALL of must socialist societies occur when a large majority of people believe they don't HAVE to do a good job to be paid. It has happed over and over. Capitalist society is a constant reminder that is you slack you'll get canned. It is better in that respect.

By the above paragraph I was not insinuating that all socialist workers are lazy. In reality, must bust their asses. I'm saying when the trend bends to laziness... ^^ Just my way of seeing it from the tiny bit of research I've done. ^^

--Miyage

And there'e no such thing as someone who works hard all their life and stays poor no matter what they do? As I said earler in this thread, if all it took was hard work, there'd be a lot more billionaires.

Look, people, the fact is that neither system works. Why? Because capitalism, in its pure form, is the law of the jungle, and thus encourages the strongest (i.e. the most ruthless and most willing to exploit others) to get to the top, and then to stay there and make sure nobody gets up after them. All this nonsense about "capitalism gives infinite opportunity" is just that - nonsense. Capitalism, if practised according to its truest form, restricts the opportunity for advancement, wealth etc. to an elite few, who are in most cases displaced either by conspiracy against them by their own servants (one of whom takes over his ex-master's position) or by the rise of an even more calculating, ruthless and above all else strong individual from below. In effect, the monarchies formerly present in the majority of Europe (and in Britain prior to the Magne Carta et al.) were the closest thing yet seen in human society to pure capitalism. The few who were at the top, be it by brute force or intelligent manoeuvre, were equipped with all the tools necessary to stay there, and only when they either popped their golden clogs or managed to piss off half of the nobility did they lose their status. Meanwhile, the poor stayed very, very poor. However, even in this period, the Church provided charity for some, and provided the reassurance of an eternal afterlife of pleasure for those who were humble and hard-working. Had it not, I very much doubt monarchies could have survived for any significant length of time. Religion was indeed the opiate of the masses.

Socialism, meanwhile, doesn't work unless it's implemented with brutal and unremitting forcefulness - in which case you end up with the USSR. Socialism relies on people being unselfish and intelligent, and the vast majority of the population are neither. Until they finally become capable of planning more then five minutes ahead (e.g "I think I'll avoid getting five different credit cards and running up twenty grand's worth of debt on each one") the vast majority of the population will make certain the socialism can't work - if you keep giving them a free meal, they'll take it and then put their feet up and wait for the next one.

The irony here is, of course, that the majority of the population is relentlessly, almost outstandingly dim-witted. Show your average prole a piece of Stravinsky (a composer to whom I am not partial in the least) and they'll give you a nonplussed stare. Show them a book that has more than 200 pages and doesn't mention football and most of them will have a hard time seeing the point in it. Heck, showing them a book's often a waste of time. Yes, the people are stupid. But as soon as they realise that the intelligent and calculating are using that stupidity, they seem remarkably able to unite and challenge the existing exploitative regime - after which, they promptly go back home and talk about football, sex and shopping. The stupidity of the "working" class (quotation marks used since for the most part they earn more than lower middle class gents such as I) will always defeat socialism; paradoxically, however, the stupidity of the working class always seems to disappear when confronted with capitalism.

More rubbish about the poor being lazy. I'm afraid there's a lot of lazy rich folk out there (a certain wealthy, prominent man who just didn't bother to show up to work while employed by the US military comes to mind) and a lot of very hard-working poor.

Capitalist society rewards greed and exploitation of others, not hard work. It vastly undervalues some of the most important job roles in our community. Why? Because it can.

My sister works incredibly hard. She's a childcare worker. She has always been poor, and will always be poor. Why is she poor? Not because she's lazy, but because she works in a job that's extremely important - and more importantly to her, that she loves - yet vastly undervalued by the capitalist system. On the other hand, I know one guy who's paid an awful lot to tell people what to do, but do little himself. Nice guy, but boy would I be bored playing on the Internet instead of working all day.

Yes, I know it's anecdotal, but so are many of the stories here.

If society valued some of the poorest-paid yet vital job roles, rather than appallingly over-remunerating the input of twits who know how to throw a basketball/pretend they're an assassin while the camera's rolling/cut wages and call it a profit, I think you'd find the same amount of hard workers in society and a lot less poverty.

Was that a twinge of jellousy in the voice of your text? Just because they play basketball doesn't mean they don't bust their ass. They take the game -- every game -- more serriously than you may ever imagine. They concentrate to their fullest and train twelve hours PER minute they play. They deserve that money.

Don't bring Bush in to it, you try running a country.

Hey, I'm a childcare Provider, too! I'm not complaining. Why? Because I get my share, which makes me rich. Those who oppose capitalism just because the lazy poor are trampled are the weak making sorry ass excuses for themselves. Get off your ass, put the Cheetos down, and Work hard. It's not a difficult concept.

--Miyage

Heh. No, not jealousy. I don't doubt basketballers work hard, and if you go back to my previous post, I'm all for rewarding people for hard work. What I'm not in favour of is disproportionate reward - you can't tell me someone who practices ball 12 hours a day works harder than someone who scrubs toilets or lays bricks 12 hours a day.

In one of your previous posts, you mentioned that you're now earning enough to just get by. By your own arguments, that means you're not working hard enough. Perhaps if you work more hours and take on a couple of extra kids, you will be rewarded?

... no, I didn't think so either. You and my sister fulfil one of society's most vital roles. You should be being paid more. It's hard work, physically and emotionally exhausting, and you get paid about the same as a checkout operator (in this country, anyway). But because of free market forces/demand, your work is considered to be of little value compared to that of others.

Get off your ass, put the Cheetos down, and Work hard. It's not a difficult concept.

--Miyage

I hope you're not using the imperative tense there. I am a middle-income earner with a full-time job. And I do work damn hard, thank you very much. Harder than a lot of people who earn more than me.

You missed the part where I said I was rich for getting my piece. I've been at both ends of the spectrum. Rich isn't three porches in the garage, it's having something that you've earned. Poor is just the opposite. Losers who sit on their ass all day and complain that no one will hire them are poor. They should put in a few volunteer hours, slap it on their resume, and give an employer the chance to take a second glance at them.

No, it isn't fair that I don't get paid shit and Jay Z is set for life, but life isn't fair. Socialism is an idealistic facade designed to mask that fact.

--Miyage

[size=1]They concentrate to their fullest and train twelve hours PER minute they play. They deserve that money.
You're kidding me, right? Do you honestly expect me to believe that they train twelve hours for every minute they played?

Let's see here...

Let's say a basketball player played for five minutes in a game. Five times twelve is sixty.

60 hours spent for five minutes? That's 20 more hours than us proles work in a whole week (and they can make upwards of four-times more, at the least!). And I daresay that, on top of playing ball, the player would be doing commercials and other such BS associated with playing sports, thus taking up more of their time.

Get real...

You're kidding me, right? Do you honestly expect me to believe that they train twelve hours for every minute they played?

Let's see here...

Let's say a basketball player played for five minutes in a game. Five times twelve is sixty.

60 hours spent for five minutes? That's 20 more hours than us proles work in a whole week (and they can make upwards of four-times more, at the least!). And I daresay that, on top of playing ball, the player would be doing commercials and other such BS associated with playing sports, thus taking up more of their time.

Get real...

You have no idea how much training sports players put in, do you? I don't think it's a terribly important job, and neither do I like many sports, and I also think it's sad that sports are considered as serious as a lot of other issues. But I don't for a second presume they don't work hard as hell for it.

Okay, Miyage, that's a different take on being 'rich' but I can take that into account for context.

I've always seen capitalism (caveat: I mean the current US free market model) as the idealistic facade designed to mask the fact that life isn't fair. Ie: 'work harder and you'll get more money'; or 'the poor are lazy'. It uses the dangling carrot of success through labour to hide its obviously very uneven playing field.

There are many socialisms, and I think each person's own 'ideal' socialism (or capitalism for that matter) will differ from the next person's. Mine is about recognising inequality of opportunity and eliminating it; and about fairness of wage appropriate to the work undertaken. Corporations have no interest in promoting these.

(I didn't even do the maths re basketballers. I'm sure they work very hard, but really ...)

Come back when a succesful, democratic communist nation has not only formed, but has existed for some decades (At the very least, seeing as capitalism has been working quite well for centuries now.) Not hardly. Capitalism has, for much of the time since Adam Smith, been openly and staunchly mercantilistic. Now, unless you consider mercantilism to be capitalism, your claim there is moot. Then there was the New Deal, which added some socialism to the mix. But it didn't get rid of the mercantilism. Of course, you'd also have to believe that the U.S. was democratic all of that time. Of course, there could be some other country that wasn't openly mercantilistic, I was speaking only for the U.S. Can you think of one?
As it is, seems to us that a ruling individual or class takes power. And this doesn't happen in capitalism?
But conveniently enough, failed Communism isn't Communism, so it should never be regarded as a failure.Except, of course, for it to be failed communism, the people in power would have actually been trying to implement it. Since their actions say otherwise, it wasn't even failed communism, it was simply a dictatorship in another form.
Socialism is the first step on a road to a dictatorship.No, concentrating power is the first step on a road to a dictatorship.

Not hardly. Capitalism has, for much of the time since Adam Smith, been openly and staunchly mercantilistic. Now, unless you consider mercantilism to be capitalism, your claim there is moot. Then there was the New Deal, which added some socialism to the mix. But it didn't get rid of the mercantilism. Of course, you'd also have to believe that the U.S. was democratic all of that time. Of course, there could be some other country that wasn't openly mercantilistic, I was speaking only for the U.S. Can you think of one?

Well, I'm pretty certain that most moden nations operate under a form of capitalism more heavily influenced by Adam Smith than by mercantilism (Which I do believe to be a form of capitalism, just not a very good one, as it came about during a period of nationalism which makes neocons look like hippies.), and most of these nations, even the more heavily socialist ones, are enjoying some measure of success.

And this doesn't happen in capitalism?

No, but it's a common myth. Here's why. In capitalism, you've got choice. No, you don't have the choice to buy a $400,000 car, but you've got the choice to try and earn it. No corporations are sitting there thinking 'Bwahahaha! I shall conquer the masses by preventing them purchasing a DeLorean DMC-12! And they will never know that the thousands of different musical artists are all our puppets...' Fact is, not having the means to acquire something is not being oppressed. Having all the choice we in the west have is about as free as it gets. At least until we've got a robot army to do EVERYTHING for us, we have essentially limitless resources, and we have time and power to do pretty much whatever we please.

Except, of course, for it to be failed communism, the people in power would have actually been trying to implement it. Since their actions say otherwise, it wasn't even failed communism, it was simply a dictatorship in another form.

What... uhh... actually, just what? It seems you proved my point entirely.

No, concentrating power is the first step on a road to a dictatorship.

... ok. Fair point. :p Socialism concentrates power in the government, which has by nature a far stronger mandate for rule than anything else, short of religion.

Well, I'm pretty certain that most moden nations operate under a form of capitalism more heavily influenced by Adam Smith than by mercantilism (Which I do believe to be a form of capitalism, just not a very good one, as it came about during a period of nationalism which makes neocons look like hippies.), and most of these nations, even the more heavily socialist ones, are enjoying some measure of success.But if you consider mercantilism a form of capitalism, then I can consider democratic socialism a form of socialism.

Fact is, not having the means to acquire something is not being oppressed. If you're talking about food or shelter, it certainly is being oppressed. If you're talking about luxuries, then it isn't.

Having all the choice we in the west have is about as free as it gets. Having choices is meaningless if none of the options are good.


What... uhh... actually, just what? It seems you proved my point entirely.
Was your point that socialism will never exist?


... ok. Fair point. :p Socialism concentrates power in the government, which has by nature a far stronger mandate for rule than anything else, short of religion.Which is fine, as long as the government is a direct democracy, which is made up of all of the people living in the society.

If society valued some of the poorest-paid yet vital job roles, rather than appallingly over-remunerating the input of twits who know how to throw a basketball/pretend they're an assassin while the camera's rolling/cut wages and call it a profit, I think you'd find the same amount of hard workers in society and a lot less poverty.

The reason movie stars and sports stars get so much money is that people are willing to pay that much for them. If people wern't willing to pay so much at the cinemas and didn't want to know about these people so much they would earn less money. Society as a whole finds these people interesting so are willing to pay them extreme amounts of money. People working vital jobs and not getting paid much are doing so out of free will if the money wasn't enough, or if people weren't willing to work for that money, then no one would do the jobs and the pay rate would have to rise (since it is a vital job).

But if you consider mercantilism a form of capitalism, then I can consider democratic socialism a form of socialism.

Well, that's probably fair enough. Given that I consider it a form of socialism as well.

If you're talking about food or shelter, it certainly is being oppressed. If you're talking about luxuries, then it isn't.

It's not oppression. I don't believe in an intractable link between all living beings, or all Humans, simply because they are Humans. I believe it extremely wise to help the less fortunate, but I do not believe it can morally be mandated.

Having choices is meaningless if none of the options are good.

Mmm, I'd agree in principle, but the problem with that statement is that good is more than a little subjective. I hate 90% of what passes for entertainment and culture in Britain nowadays, but hey, if it's popular... besides which, I've got plenty of other choices anyways. And if I didn't, I'd make them myself.

Was your point that socialism will never exist?

No, my point was that claiming Stalinism and Maoism, to give two popular examples, are not Communism is a futile effort, as they are corruptions of a Communist system. And as they are so widespread (And so harmful), such corruptions seem so endemic to the philosophy that one surely cannot believe that, at least the in near future, attempts at Communism will result in any other outcomes.

Which is fine, as long as the government is a direct democracy, which is made up of all of the people living in the society.

True, but there is no such thing as a true democracy and there isn't going to be until we can link everyone in a nation up to a robust and tamper-proof voting system from their own homes. Until such time, the government can take whatever measures it likes pretty much. The difference is in capitalism they at least start out relatively weak, so we can sit here and debate for some time until the internet gets closed down. Socialism, with it's stricter controls over the media and other important industries, does have an easier time of it if they want to go bad. It's not inevitable, to be fair, but it's pretty likely, because socialism and the nanny state are inextricably linked, and the nanny state is essentially big brother's little sister.

Well, that's probably fair enough. Given that I consider it a form of socialism as well.Then we're agreed.


It's not oppression. I don't believe in an intractable link between all living beings, or all Humans, simply because they are Humans. I believe it extremely wise to help the less fortunate, but I do not believe it can morally be mandated.Then what do you consider oppression to be?


Mmm, I'd agree in principle, but the problem with that statement is that good is more than a little subjective. I hate 90% of what passes for entertainment and culture in Britain nowadays, but hey, if it's popular... besides which, I've got plenty of other choices anyways. And if I didn't, I'd make them myself.It's nice that you have the time and/or the resources to do to. How about choices between politicians running for a particular office? What if they're both awful? Is picking "the lesser of two evils" really the pinnacle of freedom?


No, my point was that claiming Stalinism and Maoism, to give two popular examples, are not Communism is a futile effort, as they are corruptions of a Communist system. And as they are so widespread (And so harmful), such corruptions seem so endemic to the philosophy that one surely cannot believe that, at least the in near future, attempts at Communism will result in any other outcomes.Attempts at communism where power is concentrated in the hands of the few would, yes, but power concentrated tends to lead to those things. All the more reason to never concentrate power.


True, but there is no such thing as a true democracy and there isn't going to be until we can link everyone in a nation up to a robust and tamper-proof voting system from their own homes. Or divide the nation up into smaller pieces.

Until such time, the government can take whatever measures it likes pretty much. The difference is in capitalism they at least start out relatively weak, so we can sit here and debate for some time until the internet gets closed down. Except that in capitalism, the government isn't the enemy, the people who own it are.

Socialism, with it's stricter controls over the media and other important industries, does have an easier time of it if they want to go bad.Socialism doesn't require stricter controls over the media.

Originally Posted by BegarkSocialism, with it's stricter controls over the media and other important industries, does have an easier time of it if they want to go bad.
Another person who doesn't seem to know the difference between an economic system and a political system. Socialism is not the same as dictatorship.

Another person who doesn't seem to know the difference between an economic system and a political system. Socialism is not the same as dictatorship.

Lol. That's right.

It's a long off season, do the math again. It ads up. If a commersial takes longer than five minutes of the players time, he's the worst actor of all TIME. You are contacted. Short audition. Get the script (Two pages MAX, half of them don't even talk. Take MJ, Averages 1 line per commercial he's done) rehearse it with the blocking (which on commercials is ussually stationary or natural movements anyway) director says cut and print. Player goes home to large mansion and gets ready for practice. FIVE MINUTES of actual filming... Not that much time, I'd say.

As for the idea of an even playing field? HA. Never in a million years could any civilization be completely even without oppression. The perfect government is non existant.

I'm sorry famous people can get by without doing sh*t, and that that upsets you, but do you really need a band-aid if it isn't bleeding? You're on the internet to post this, which means you pay the bill, which means you have a home, which means you have extra cash (obviously, if you have enough money for internet). You aren't a poor downtroughten citizen, get over it, or run for prez.

(Tough love, Brothers and sisters. I was raised on it.)

--Miyage

In any sane socialist economy:

*People will not receive uniform pay for totally different tasks.

*"The government" won't own a thing while it's an institution apart from the people.

So I don't know what most of you are talking about. Some fantasy enemy that you can figure out how to beat, perhaps. Which is a bit lame.

Socialism isn't entirely in conflict with capitalism in some regards. It's just that the understanding that people seem to have of capitalism isn't any more fair or reasonable than their misconception of socialism, apparently.

For my part, I'm an advocate of socialism because I'm opposed to theft, I suppose. And because I'm a democrat. And the modern distortion of capitalism is both theft-oriented and counter-democratic.

So there you go, that's me.

So taking money from people against their will and giving it those who didn't earn it (i.e., social welfare) isn't theft? :rolleyes:

Socialism is inefficient, tyrannical, and prone to massive corruption. Everywhere it has been tried, it has been a resounding failure. Compare, for example, the thriving, prosperous country of Rhodesia to today's Zimbabwe, or Chile under Allende (inflation running at several hundred percent) to Pinochet's Chile. And notice how explosively communist countries' economies have grown since they've begun throwing off the shackles of socialism.

Then we're agreed.

Cool.

Then what do you consider oppression to be?

Censorship, invasion of privacy, limitation of choice (Based on laws and morals, not based on being beyond one's means, as removing that would remove almost everything from almost everyone), and social stigma based on one's choices.

It's nice that you have the time and/or the resources to do to. How about choices between politicians running for a particular office? What if they're both awful? Is picking "the lesser of two evils" really the pinnacle of freedom?

So then I get up and change it. I go and find a barely-known third candidate, or I stand myself. If that is not a legal possibility, then I go to the courts and attempt to make it one. (In truth, the pinnacle of freedom is absolute solitude, but that's also the pinnacle of making people go crazy.)

Attempts at communism where power is concentrated in the hands of the few would, yes, but power concentrated tends to lead to those things. All the more reason to never concentrate power.

And all attempts at communism have ended up concentrating power. I fully agree that power should not be concentrated, incidentally.

Or divide the nation up into smaller pieces.

Yes, actually, I don't like the way it's worded as it suggests segregation, but giving regions more powers to decide their own policies, and central government fewer powers, is an idea I'm largely behind.

Except that in capitalism, the government isn't the enemy, the people who own it are.

A common fallacy to assume all branches of all organisations of capitalist nations are corrupt. I don't believe corporations have direct undue influence on the government, and I believe only the media corporations are really stepping over bounderies. On the other hand, I believe in near-absolute freedom of speech, so I can't argue with anything other than out and out lies.

Socialism doesn't require stricter controls over the media.

No, but it seems to end up with that as the case.

Socialism is inefficient, tyrannical, and prone to massive corruption. Everywhere it has been tried, it has been a resounding failure. Compare, for example, the thriving, prosperous country of Rhodesia to today's Zimbabwe, or Chile under Allende (inflation running at several hundred percent) to Pinochet's Chile. And notice how explosively communist countries' economies have grown since they've begun throwing off the shackles of socialism.

I agree. It surely says something about socialism when it is Dictator's Choice for disarming and weakening the populace.

Originally posted by El Caudillo
Socialism is inefficient, tyrannical, and prone to massive corruption. Everywhere it has been tried, it has been a resounding failure. Compare, for example, the thriving, prosperous country of Rhodesia to today's Zimbabwe, or Chile under Allende (inflation running at several hundred percent) to Pinochet's Chile. And notice how explosively communist countries' economies have grown since they've begun throwing off the shackles of socialism.

You do know that Pinochet, the staunch anti-socialist, ordered the murder of thousands of his own people, right? Surely, you don't condone purges so long as they're done by someone who says he's opposed to communism? (BTW, socialism and communism, especially as practiced in USSR and PRC are not the same thing. We're right back to what I said about the difference between a political system and an economic system.)

Socialism is inefficient, tyrannical, and prone to massive corruption. Everywhere it has been tried, it has been a resounding failure. Compare, for example, the thriving, prosperous country of Rhodesia to today's Zimbabwe, or Chile under Allende (inflation running at several hundred percent) to Pinochet's Chile. And notice how explosively communist countries' economies have grown since they've begun throwing off the shackles of socialism.

The German Weimar Republic had one of the world's worts hyperinflation with a centrist government.

Capitalism and Socialism can both be run well or be run badly. Socialism is at a disadvantage since nearly all other countries are Capitalist and can jepordise the Socislist economy.

Censorship, invasion of privacy, limitation of choice (Based on laws and morals, not based on being beyond one's means, as removing that would remove almost everything from almost everyone), and social stigma based on one's choices.How interesting. So then you don't think that withholding food or access to food to a group of people, for instance, is oppression?


So then I get up and change it. I go and find a barely-known third candidate, or I stand myself. If that is not a legal possibility, then I go to the courts and attempt to make it one. (In truth, the pinnacle of freedom is absolute solitude, but that's also the pinnacle of making people go crazy.)That's noble, and on one hand is a good idea, but on the other hand power is so heavily concentrated into two groups (really one group masquerading as two) that it's nearly impossible, except maybe at a local level.


And all attempts at communism have ended up concentrating power. I fully agree that power should not be concentrated, incidentally.I wouldn't say that all attempts at communism have ended up concentrating power, the Paris Commune, for instance, did not.


Yes, actually, I don't like the way it's worded as it suggests segregation, but giving regions more powers to decide their own policies, and central government fewer powers, is an idea I'm largely behind.Oh, I didn't mean segregation (the separatists are quite scary) but to a degree I like the idea of local governments having more power.


A common fallacy to assume all branches of all organisations of capitalist nations are corrupt. I don't believe corporations have direct undue influence on the government, and I believe only the media corporations are really stepping over bounderies. On the other hand, I believe in near-absolute freedom of speech, so I can't argue with anything other than out and out lies.They're not all corrupt, but the majority are, and the majority rules. You don't believe that Halliburton has undue influence on the government, or that Enron didn't when they and Cheney worked out the nation's defense policy? I also agree with freedom of speech, and unfortunately media outlets are afraid to put certain images, like images of war casualties on TV because of fear of FCC fines.[/QUOTE]