NationStates Jolt Archive

We need a socialist society because it is the only true system of equality and the only system of government designed for the people. Medical services, housing, and education are inherent rights. These are things people shouldnt have to pay for or struggle to obtain.

How can we, as a western society, call ourselves moral and just while people in our countries starve on the street or have people forced to decide to buy food or medicine while the hardest decision an elite must make is which car to drive that day. The Government should also make sure employers provide a living wage to all and provide jobs to those who cant find work.

Keep in mind: avg. life expect. of US=77.4 yrs, Cuba=77.0yrs. cost of healthcare(avg) US=$2,000 per yr. Cuba=$20. Long live the great workers revolution!!

How nice you completely forgot Cuba is a dictatorship where all things pro-democracy are banned! And is Cuba really that socialist? I doubt it. Tourists are only allowed to spend dollars, just to keep the cash flowing in. The country itself rules, but the government doesn't. Cuba is hardly the socialist example you people love to put forward.

PS: what's your source?

Keep in mind: avg. life expect. of US=77.4 yrs, Cuba=77.0yrs. cost of healthcare(avg) US=$2,000 per yr. Cuba=$20. Long live the great workers revolution!!

To be fair, though, people in the US generally lead more unhealthy lifestyles than Cubans, so are bound to need more money spent on them to keep the life expectancy high. If your countries culture involves excessive consumption of junk food and driving your car when you have to travel any distance longer than 100yds, of course you are going to have a pretty poor life expectancy unless an expensive healthcare system backs it up.

Socialism? No thanks, you can keep it.

How can we, as a western society, call ourselves moral and just while people in our countries starve on the street or have people forced to decide to buy food or medicine while the hardest decision an elite must make is which car to drive that day.

By realising that society is the source of morals ?

Remember of course the main flaw with capitalism is that not everyone can be rich. There will always be a rich/poor divide.

The Government should also make sure employers provide a living wage to all and provide jobs to those who cant find work.


And ponies.

Since we're handing out houses and doctors and teachers for free (not really free, but paid for by others who earned it), let's also have ponies.

Seriously, I'd be willing to look at nationalized healthcare, and maybe some zoning support for low-cost housing, and job-training of some kind, but the subsidy for all of these things come from positive earners (people whose production is taken from to support those who don't produce enough to support themselves). So the productive get the shaft in favor of those requiring subsidy.

Every time we do it, we make it less attractive to be a positive earner.

To be fair, though, people in the US generally lead more unhealthy lifestyles than Cubans, so are bound to need more money spent on them to keep the life expectancy high.

Well, then you can look at Europe, it's not socialist, but closer to socialism than USA, and the lifestyle is not very different. The socialised french health system, for example, costs us 9% of our GDP, while the USA health system costs USA 14% of their GDP. But the childdeath rate is lower in France, and the life expectency is above 80 years (77 years in USA).

Saddly, they are currently disbanding this socialised health system (built by the Communist Party in 1944) in the name of the "Washington consenus" :'(

We need a socialist society because it is the only true system of equality and the only system of government designed for the people. Medical services, housing, and education are inherent rights. These are things people shouldnt have to pay for or struggle to obtain.

How can we, as a western society, call ourselves moral and just while people in our countries starve on the street or have people forced to decide to buy food or medicine while the hardest decision an elite must make is which car to drive that day. The Government should also make sure employers provide a living wage to all and provide jobs to those who cant find work.

Keep in mind: avg. life expect. of US=77.4 yrs, Cuba=77.0yrs. cost of healthcare(avg) US=$2,000 per yr. Cuba=$20. Long live the great workers revolution!!

I really think you need to better define "socialist society". Some might say communism is this... And I would dare say China is hardly a system "for the people". However, if you look at more western socialist nations, you will begin to see the very reasons why we do NOT need socialism. Yes, you get many of these "rights" like healthcare, housing etc.. but your economies are scarely able to sustain them. As it the reality for most European nations today on the brink of economic distaster, many of these socalist systems are under grave threat. The reality is, it is human nature to desire more then what we have, and "equality" isn't always so equal.

People work less and get the same then people who work more... this is the ulimate problem with socialism.. it fails to promot productivity and fails to reward the hard worker. As well it stiffels the individuals desires for achievement, to become something more then they are. Capitalism in fact acheives this quite nicely, which is why our system largely works so well. While European socialist programs still exist today, I would sumize they are largely elements left over from post WW2 coldwar eras, are will slowly disapate in time, as the society (which enjoys better more fruitful lives) will inevtiably seek the greater opprotunities capitalism offers. That and the economies of Europe will eventually force the change otherwise. These predictions of course are already evident throught Europe as movements in Spain, France, and Germany threaten many of the beloved socalist programs.

Well, then you can look at Europe, it's not socialist, but closer to socialism than USA, and the lifestyle is not very different. The socialised french health system, for example, costs us 9% of our GDP, while the USA health system costs USA 14% of their GDP. But the childdeath rate is lower in France, and the life expectency is above 80 years (77 years in USA).

Saddly, they are currently disbanding this socialised health system (built by the Communist Party in 1944) in the name of the "Washington consenus" :'(

The childbirth mortality figures are, I think, a more accurate figure to go off. Though the far-right wingers in the US would just say "Well, it's only the filthy poor who's children die, and if they were too lazy to get a job and health insurance it's their own fault. Besides, we don't want more of the genetically inferiour commoners to reproduce"

But I would dispute the idea that the French have almost as unhealthy lifestyle as Americans. I know that a lot of French food is very fatty and rich, but the thing is they snack a lot less and more time is taken over eating meals. Besides, there is nowhere near the laziness when it comes to travelling over there. I've visted both France and the US - I never noticed much of a difference when it came to transport in France, but in the US in a lot of places they made it impossible to walk anywhere- towns were certainly not designed with pedestrians in mind, only motorists. The average American walks about a mile a week, and that is mostly made up by walking around shopping centres. Walking is one of the healthiest forms of exercise there is, and if you don't make up for lack of walking in some other way you're bound to be physically unfit and probably overweight.

Capitalism in fact acheives this quite nicely, which is why our system largely works so well.

*coughcough*
You can actually say that with a straight face ?

*coughcough*
You can actually say that with a straight face ?

proudly... while it is niether perfect, nor without fault... it hits a rather nice equlibrium, where individual dertimination is met with general reward, and seemingly endless opprotunity. Even more importantly, it is self sustaining over time, where sadly socalism is not. Capitalism is the system built around human nature, while socalism is the system built to surplant human nature with an "ideal". Often, this only leads to far worse results then capitalism could ever produce.

How nice you completely forgot Cuba is a dictatorship where all things pro-democracy are banned! And is Cuba really that socialist? I doubt it. Tourists are only allowed to spend dollars, just to keep the cash flowing in. The country itself rules, but the government doesn't. Cuba is hardly the socialist example you people love to put forward.

I wouldn't take Cuba as an example of perfect socialism, it does have a lot of huge problems, the lack of demcracy being the most unacceptable one. But looking at Cuba can show us that a socialised health system can be very, very efficient. Same for their education system btw, it's one of the best of the world.

And all that despite the economic blocus, remember...

Every time we do it, we make it less attractive to be a positive earner.

Actually, it's far TOO much attractive to earn money, henceforth all the people who use antisocial, immoral or even criminal ways to earn money.

The incentive to "make money" at all cost is one of the greatest flaw of capitalism, which results in high crime rates, enormous corporate frauds, destruction of the environement, and a complete disregard for human lifes in some of the most important decisions (the ones taken by big corporations, who, nowadays, hold a power comparable, if not higher, than the power of many governement).

I wouldn't take Cuba as an example of perfect socialism, it does have a lot of huge problems, the lack of demcracy being the most unacceptable one. But looking at Cuba can show us that a socialised health system can be very, very efficient. Same for their education system btw, it's one of the best of the world.

And all that despite the economic blocus, remember...

I must question that remark on Cubas education system being one of the best.. I would suspect all of the censorship and propoganda would have quite an impact on such a system.

Question: Why are there so many gays who skip around their hammer and sickle, but conviently forget that all communist regimes view homosexuality as an example of the 'decadent west' and their 'beaugoise elite'.

Isn't it also all rather funny that those who promote socialism and rights for the working class, all seem to come from middle to upper class families who have never associated with someone from the working class in their whole entire existance!

I must question that remark on Cubas education system being one of the best.. I would suspect all of the censorship and propoganda would have quite an impact on such a system.

Eh. Every country has propaganda in it's education system, to a certain degree. In my GCSE history exam on the Vietnam war, an American school textbook which made out the attrocities commited by the US were unimportant and nothing compared to the evil Vietnamese, who dared to want communism, was used as an example of a biased source.

Isn't it also all rather funny that those who promote socialism and rights for the working class, all seem to come from middle to upper class families who have never associated with someone from the working class in their whole entire existance!

You obviously haven't come into contact with many working class then. My father comes from a very working class enviroment - he shared a bed with his brother, lived in a back-to-back slum with three rooms and an outdoors toilet right in the middle of Leeds. Him and everyone he knew as a boy voted Old Labour, who were pretty socialist at the time.

I agree, we need more socialism, but not socialism implemented by the government, that only leads to dictatorial regimes: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro is really a dictator too, only he's not as bad as the previous three.
What we need is solidarity amongst the people, without a government forcing them. It may look all pretty in theory, but in reality, it's not that nice living under that kind of government, simply because there is no freedom.

proudly... while it is niether perfect, nor without fault... it hits a rather nice equlibrium, where individual dertimination is met with general reward, and seemingly endless opprotunity.

And yet working hard or performing a task only few can do does not automatically mean better rewards. Quite the opposite in many cases in fact...

Even more importantly, it is self sustaining over time, where sadly socalism is not.
While capitalism is self-sustaining in a global sense, this does not mean it will continue to be beneficial to your own country or population group. An often overlooked downside.

Capitalism is the system built around human nature, while socalism is the system built to surplant human nature with an "ideal". Often, this only leads to far worse results then capitalism could ever produce.
With this I sadly must agree.

You obviously haven't come into contact with many working class then. My father comes from a very working class enviroment - he shared a bed with his brother, lived in a back-to-back slum with three rooms and an outdoors toilet right in the middle of Leeds. Him and everyone he knew as a boy voted Old Labour, who were pretty socialist at the time.

Babe, you obviously know jack about my parents background - all I have to say is this; when I was born, my parents were part of the bottom 15% of NZ society, stugging to make ends meet - mum used to purchase clothes from the op-shop, preserving of fruit, looking back it was like watching a scene out of the depression.

But 20 years later, my parents are now part of the top 10% of New Zealand earners, hence the reason I have the approach of getting off ones ass and doing something, rather than sitting aroaund expecting a hand out from nanny state.

Can I respectfully suggest that those advocating a Socialist experiment in the West actually leave their comfortable lives to slum it with the real socialists?

Like the North Koreans.

Seems to be working really well for them.

Almost as well as it worked for Eastern Europe...

Actually, it's far TOO much attractive to earn money, henceforth all the people who use antisocial, immoral or even criminal ways to earn money.

The incentive to "make money" at all cost is one of the greatest flaw of capitalism, which results in high crime rates, enormous corporate frauds, destruction of the environement, and a complete disregard for human lifes in some of the most important decisions (the ones taken by big corporations, who, nowadays, hold a power comparable, if not higher, than the power of many governement).

So, wanting free money for houses, health care, and education is okay, but wanting to keep money you earn is evil.

EDIT: Seriously, anything taken to extremes will likely be bad, capitalism included. But when I say "positive earner", I don't mean you have to live like Tony Montana in the back half of "Scarface"; just that when you generally reward subsidy takers rather than subsidy providers, the equilibrium will shift.

Can I respectfully suggest that those advocating a Socialist experiment in the West actually leave their comfortable lives to slum it with the real socialists?

Like the North Koreans.

Seems to be working really well for them.

Almost as well as it worked for Eastern Europe...

I would do so gladly. Im not advocating the North Korean way of life. However in many eastern euro countries, including Russia, most were better off during socialist times than they do now. Many, wish for the return of that system. for example housing in russia during socialism was 5% of income, now its upwards of 40-50% and many are homeless. This shows capitalism fails the weak and disadvantaged, this is immoral and unjust.

Can I respectfully suggest that those advocating a Socialist experiment in the West actually leave their comfortable lives to slum it with the real socialists?

Like the North Koreans.

Seems to be working really well for them.

Almost as well as it worked for Eastern Europe...

And might I respectfully suggest that those advocating pure capitalism actually leave their comfortable lives to slum it with the real capitalists?

Like the Chileans under Pinochet.

Seemed to be working really well for them.

Almost as well as it worked during The Gilded Age...

Pure capitalism has proved to be just as shocking as pure socialism. Only countries with a mix of the two such as in Europe and America seem to be doing alright.

Oh, and lovely boys - you coming from a working class background and anti-socialist does not disprove my point. I showed examples of working class people supporting socialism and you showed an example of someone from a working class background supporting capitalism. Therefore, logically, your initial statement that only the middle and upper classes support it would appear to be false - there are working class left wingers and working class right wingers, just like there are middle class left wingers and middle class right wingers.

Some might say communism is this... And I would dare say China is hardly a system "for the people".

China is a far from communism is you may ever be ;)

However, if you look at more western socialist nations, you will begin to see the very reasons why we do NOT need socialism. Yes, you get many of these "rights" like healthcare, housing etc.. but your economies are scarely able to sustain them. As it the reality for most European nations today on the brink of economic distaster, many of these socalist systems are under grave threat.

European countries are far from being socialists. If the social systems in European countries have problems nowadays, it's not, at all, because they are inherently flawed. They worked well for 30 years, even in the ruins that Europe was after WW2.

What's the problem nowadays ? The problem is that, since between mid-70s and mid-80s (depending of the countries), Europe moved quickly towards _more_ capitalism, following the "Washington consensus". This leaded into a shift of the wealth split, in favor of capital instead of workers. In 1982, in France, 85% of the prodcued wealth went to workers, 15% to the capital (stock owners, land owners, ...). In 2002, it was 70%/30%. The social systems in Europe are paid on the part of the wealth going to workers (usually it's a fixed amount of salary which goes to the social security instead of going to the worker). This 15% that was taken out from workers is also taken out from the social systems. The "deficit" of all social systems in France (and it's around the same elsewhere) is around 1-2% of their income, far, far below the missing 15%.

France economy is about to collapse ? The CAC40 (40 biggest french companies) doubled their profits in 2005 compared to 2004. Which was already a record year. No wonder why the social system is suffering, and the unemployment rate is that high...

What we need is definetly MORE socialism.

And speaking about economies about to collapse, the US economy is far closer to collapse than ours. Between the external debt which is much much bigger than european countries external debt, and the internal debt (household debt) which is also much bigger, you're going into troubles very quickly. Remember that it's China who is keeping the dollar strong, because they need a strong dollar to export their stuff easily, so they buy a lot of dollars in the currency market, to avoid the devaluation that should have occured due to Bush disastrous policies.

The reality is, it is human nature to desire more then what we have, and "equality" isn't always so equal.

Human nature doesn't exist. Or if it does, it's adaptability. Humans can be wonderful or awful, selfish or generous, manipulative or honest. What makes us what we are is the society in which we live, our education, and our personal experiences. Capitalism CREATE selfish humans, and that's its worse flaw.

People work less and get the same then people who work more... this is the ulimate problem with socialism.. it fails to promot productivity and fails to reward the hard worker.

Neither does capitalism. The ones who earn the most in capitalism are not the workers, but the capital owners. That's the basic of the system. And the success in capitalism is much more related to your ability to deceive, to conceal, to cheat, to exploit others, than with real hard work.

Capitalism in fact acheives this quite nicely, which is why our system largely works so well.

1.3 billion of people don't have acces to clean water. One child die every 3 seconds (that makes a hundred of dead children while I wrote my answer) from starvation. But 10% of world advertising spendings would grant every human being on the planet with clean water, food, housing, basic education and basic heathcare. Even in "rich" countries, while the profits are raising to record levels, people are starving the streets, can't access to healthcare, sleep outside in the cold.

And meanwhile, we are destroying the planet. The polar ice melted more in the previous 20 years than during the 1000 of years before. Thousands of species disappear every day, many by our fault. Rivers and seas are poisoned, forests detroyed, pollution released into the air, ...

And you dare to call that a "working" system ?

While European socialist programs still exist today, I would sumize they are largely elements left over from post WW2 coldwar eras,

The European social programs (which are far from socialism) were created after WW2 to avoid WW2 from ever happening again. Remember that the raise of Hitler was provoked because of the disaster of the 1929 crisis, another utter failure of capitalism. After the horrible tragedies of WW2, European people created a social "safety net" to prevent a disaster like 1929 crisis and the social misery it created to ever occur again. Well, there were other reasons, but it's one of the most important.

the society (which enjoys better more fruitful lives) will inevtiably seek the greater opprotunities capitalism offers.

It already began. And while the wealthiest are getting more and more wealthy, and while the profits are reaching record levels, more and more european people are living in poverty, unable to access housing or healthcare. The medium purchasing power is falling down, unemployment is raising, and real misery too. And as a consequence, crime rates are raising too. European socities are sick, sick of the neoliberal policies implemented in EU since 20-30 years. Thank you, "greater opportunities of capitalism".

These predictions of course are already evident throught Europe as movements in Spain, France, and Germany threaten many of the beloved socalist programs.

Did you ever noticed that in those countries, which ARE implementing neoliberal policies, things are going worse and worse ? That the people are so upset that the ruling governement is always defeated in the next election ? That people are so disappointing by the betrayal of their leaders, who implement neoliberal policies against their will, that abstention rate are record too ? Ever noticed that French and Netherlanders both said a massive "NO" to the proposed European "Constitiution" _because_ this awful text was the doom of all social programs ?

European people are rejecting neoliberalism. And South America people are doing it too. We want social programs. We want everyone to live decently. The problem is not in social programs. It's in the "social democrat" parties who betrayed the people, and who resigned to the "Washington consensus". This is the problem of Europe. In South America, hopefully, they have a real left going back to power (Venezuela, Bolivia, ...). And oddly, in Venezuela, the situation is getting better and better. People learn how to read, are granted housings, healthcare, ... and misery is quickly reduced.

So, wanting free money for houses, health care, and education is okay, but wanting to keep money you earn is evil.

Wanting an equal opportunity to succeed and not being massively disadvantaged in terms of healthcare, education and shelter just because you were born to a poor family is, I would argue, a little more understandable than a buisnessman wanting even more money for what he does so he can buy a new sports car.

Question: Why are there so many gays who skip around their hammer and sickle, but conviently forget that all communist regimes view homosexuality as an example of the 'decadent west' and their 'beaugoise elite'.

The so-called "communist" regimes are not communist.

The French Communist Party (PCF), for example, is in favor of homosexual marriage and support the right of homosexual couples to adopt children. Only the Greens, the PCF and the LCR (Communist Revolutionnary League) are supporting those rights, in current french politics.

Isn't it also all rather funny that those who promote socialism and rights for the working class, all seem to come from middle to upper class families who have never associated with someone from the working class in their whole entire existance!

Well, on this forum maybe. But being an active member of the PCF I can tell you that most of its members are people from the working class, and that it's inside the working class that we get most of our support. It's not a surprise why the "communist" cities (cities where the mayor is from the PCF) are usually the working class cities of the suburbs.

European people are rejecting neoliberalism. And South America people are doing it too. We want social programs. We want everyone to live decently. The problem is not in social programs. It's in the "social democrat" parties who betrayed the people, and who resigned to the "Washington consensus". This is the problem of Europe. In South America, hopefully, they have a real left going back to power (Venezuela, Bolivia, ...). And oddly, in Venezuela, the situation is getting better and better. People learn how to read, are granted housings, healthcare, ... and misery is quickly reduced.
so true, well put.

Wanting an equal opportunity to succeed and not being massively disadvantaged in terms of healthcare, education and shelter just because you were born to a poor family is, I would argue, a little more understandable than a buisnessman wanting even more money for what he does so he can buy a new sports car.

We came from a poor family (Southeast asian country) with crappy healthcare, education, and shelter. Previous generation just worked their asses off, came to a capitalist country, and thrived on thrift and effort. Told us never to take any kind of handout. I know that not everybody can pull themselves out of poverty in one generation, but it should be the goal.

What we need is solidarity amongst the people, without a government forcing them. It may look all pretty in theory, but in reality, it's not that nice living under that kind of government, simply because there is no freedom.

In true communism, there is no governement ;)

But what we (democratic communists) argue, as a transition period, is to use the governement as a tool to implement socialism and solidarity, but AT THE SAME TIME (which was the major failure of USSR and similar) make the governement more democratic. We favor more direct democracy, with referendums called by the people, revokable mandates, and less control of the governement itself over the social programs.

If you look at France, when the Communist Party (PCF) implemented the Social Security system in 1944, they didn't create a state-controlled system. They created a system independant from the state, which was governed by professional elections (workers voting for various union leaders). Afterwards, the right wing was unable to destroy the Social Security, but they shifted the power towards less direct control by the workers, and more control by the state.

The same way, we support more direct control of users and workers inside public services, and so on. In St-Denis (a "communist" city, that is, where the mayor is from the PCF), the people are always directly associated with decisions like "where to build a bus stop". That's "participative democracy", akin to what was done in Porto Allegre, for example (even if not on the same scale yet). That's what we, democratic communists, are defending. Not a central state controlling everything.

You could also look at the "Bolivarian Revolution" in Venezuela, and see how Chavez is fostering grassroot democracy, and giving back power to the people, with local community media, creation of cooperatives, micro-credits, self-organised social programs, ...

Socialism is bad. The doctors and dentists, and other high-bracket job-holders get depressed about their low pay and resign, thinking they'll get money anyway.

Everything becomes more expensive, due to the exclusion of foreign countries, and so novelties become things of the past.

0% tax all the way!

We came from a poor family (Southeast asian country) with crappy healthcare, education, and shelter. Previous generation just worked their asses off, came to a capitalist country, and thrived on thrift and effort. Told us never to take any kind of handout. I know that not everybody can pull themselves out of poverty in one generation, but it should be the goal.

No doubt it is of course possible for the poor to pull themselves out of poverty. I mean, my family is fairly middle class when both my parents were working class. However, the point is that people born into a poor family should not HAVE TO work a LOT harder than those born into a rich family to end up in the same position in life. If you are lazy and incompetant but have rich parents, it's okay, you can just rely on them to bail you out and it's pretty hard to suffer any major poverty. If you are hard working and competant, you will likely succeed.

However, if you are lazy and incompetant but have poor parents, you're pretty much screwed. If you are hard working and competant, you might succeed a lot, but most likely you'll just be as well off as the failure rich kid. Whichever way you try to cut it, that's an injustice. I don't believe in total equality for all - I believe in total equality of OPPORTUNITY. That's why you should have access to decent education, healthcare and shelter regardless of where you started off in life.

We need a socialist society because it is the only true system of equality and the only system of government designed for the people. Medical services, housing, and education are inherent rights. These are things people shouldnt have to pay for or struggle to obtain.

How can we, as a western society, call ourselves moral and just while people in our countries starve on the street or have people forced to decide to buy food or medicine while the hardest decision an elite must make is which car to drive that day. The Government should also make sure employers provide a living wage to all and provide jobs to those who cant find work.

Keep in mind: avg. life expect. of US=77.4 yrs, Cuba=77.0yrs. cost of healthcare(avg) US=$2,000 per yr. Cuba=$20. Long live the great workers revolution!!
Pure socialism doesn't work. Socialist-Democratic countries, however, do. A better system to work towards, IMO.

Socialists tell me that "Conservatives get money out of daddy's pocket".

To which I reply with:

"Socialists get money out of other daddys' pockets".

Socialists tell me that "Conservatives get money out of daddy's pocket".

To which I reply with:

"Socialists get money out of other daddys' pockets".
oh wow, thats clever, did you think of it all on your own?

However, if you are lazy and incompetant but have poor parents, you're pretty much screwed. If you are hard working and competant, you might succeed a lot, but most likely you'll just be as well off as the failure rich kid. Whichever way you try to cut it, that's an injustice. I don't believe in total equality for all - I believe in total equality of OPPORTUNITY. That's why you should have access to decent education, healthcare and shelter regardless of where you started off in life.

I agree that it really blows that some get an easy ride and others have to earn it, but nature is just as cruel in how she doles out natural talent or potential (wish I had more). Some say a harder (not brutal, but difficult) life makes you better.

What if we heavily subsidized education and healthcare for the young, to provide opportunity, and then when you're an adult (or, say, 25), then you're on your own and expected to support yourself and pay back into the system?

As for the lazy and incompetent, I've been both at times, and hit bottom. Now, I work harder. I think that's the way it should be.

Keep in mind: avg. life expect. of US=77.4 yrs, Cuba=77.0yrs. cost of healthcare(avg) US=$2,000 per yr. Cuba=$20. Long live the great workers revolution!!

$20? But probably $20 is what they earn when an American earns $10000 or $20000...
I am a Pole, and though I do not remember the time we've got Commies here, there were times when you could live for a month for $10 or about.

And about the "great workers revolution" - I hope you all know, how did great workers revolutions in several countries end?

I agree that it really blows that some get an easy ride and others have to earn it, but nature is just as cruel in how she doles out natural talent or potential (wish I had more). Some say a harder (not brutal, but difficult) life makes you better.

What if we heavily subsidized education and healthcare for the young, to provide opportunity, and then when you're an adult (or, say, 25), then you're on your own and expected to support yourself and pay back into the system?

As for the lazy and incompetent, I've been both at times, and hit bottom. Now, I work harder. I think that's the way it should be.

I actually am quite ambivilant towards welfare to those able to work and at working age. I mean, there is obviously a need for it - or people would get desperate and turn to crime, and sometimes there just aren't enough jobs available for everybody to be employed. However, I do recognise that there ARE people out there that just sit around living on welfare with no intention of getting a job. I have a lot of sympathy for the person working a low-paid manual labour job, and think they should get paid a lot more than they often do as they work probably as hard as anyone else. However, long term unemployed who are able to work, or those who use a very minor medical condition such as "occasional depression" to get out of working I have little sympathy for. They should be provided with enough food and shelter to live in reasonable conditions, but anyone who is working, regardless of the job, should live in a lot better conditions.

However, long term unemployed who are able to work, or those who use a very minor medical condition such as "occasional depression" to get out of working I have little sympathy for. They should be provided with enough food and shelter to live in reasonable conditions, but anyone who is working, regardless of the job, should live in a lot better conditions.

For the malingering, I don't think I'd even be in favor of subsistence allowances. It would just enable laziness, and encourage it.

To be clear, I've been lazy in the past, and paid the price. The sad truth is, I broke out of sloth because I had to in order to survive. In a way, the need for self-support is what broke me of the habit. If others can avoid laziness with their own discipline, great; they still don't need subsidy, though.

Frankly, I think its the kids that are most entitled, particularly the ones born to unmotivated parents. I imagine we lose a lot of gifted kids, who would've been great contributors if they had a better shot.

I would do so gladly. Im not advocating the North Korean way of life. However in many eastern euro countries, including Russia, most were better off during socialist times than they do now. Many, wish for the return of that system. for example housing in russia during socialism was 5% of income, now its upwards of 40-50% and many are homeless. This shows capitalism fails the weak and disadvantaged, this is immoral and unjust.
Ahem... Some would say the present hardships are caused by the Communist system which collapsed and left the Eastern European countries in such a bad situation.

We favor more direct democracy, with referendums called by the people, revokable mandates, and less control of the governement itself over the social programs.
But what if the people will vote to abandom Communism and move to Capitalism? Will the Communist governement step aside, or will it impose a dictatorship "for the good of the people"?

But what if the people will vote to abandom Communism and move to Capitalism? Will the Communist governement step aside, or will it impose a dictatorship "for the good of the people"?

First, I doubt this will happen ;) But if did, sure, we'll accept it.

And remember that history is full of cases where capitalists do not accept the democratic victory of a "socialist" or "communist" party, and use the strength of weapons against them. In 1871, when the people of Paris voted for the socialist Commune, the Versaillais, helped by the prussian empire, slaughtered them all. In 1930s, when the people of Spain elected a leftish governement, Franco leaded a coup against them, and the capitalist countries didn't move a finger to help the Spanish Republicans. In 1970, when the people of Chile elected Allende, the CIA did it best to have Allende removed, ending up in the Pinochet coup of September 11, 1973. In 2002, the right-wing of Venezuela did a coup attempt against elected president Hugo Chavez, who was then put back in his rightful place by millions of his supporters. And the list is long, long, long.

Many countries that called themselves "communist" didn't instore democracy (remember that most of the so-called "communist" governements were not democratic at all before the "communists" took power, the "communists" didn't suppress democracy, but they didn't create it, that's not the same), but I can't think of any example of a "socialist" or "communist" governement who took power inside a demcoracy and afterwards refused to concede its defeat. It may exist, but on the opposite, the history is full of example of capitalists refusing the democratic victory of "socialists" or "communists", and using the dirtiest methods (murders, coups, terrorism, ...) against them.

We need a socialist society because it is the only true system of equality
Equality is not desirable. Equality means that the best worker and the worst are rewarded equally. Equality means that the most dedicated individual receives no more from society than the least dedicated. Equality means that to maximise your success you must maximise your need and to minimise your failure you must minimise your ability.

and the only system of government designed for the people.
This is a meanlingless statement. It's a system of government designed for lazy / unproductive people, but it is a system of government set against successful, hardworking individuals. It also inherently destroys liberty as peoples' property must be taken and "redistributed" and people are no longer able to sell their abilities on the job market or buy those of others in the form of products.

Medical services, housing, and education are inherent rights.
No they are not.

These are things people shouldnt have to pay for or struggle to obtain.
The fact is that you do have to pay for them because they dont come from nowhere. The only difference between socialism and capitalism is that in capitalism you have a choice of whether or not to pay for them and a choice of who to pay and how much and specifically what for, whereas under socialism you are forced on pain of imprisonment.

How can we, as a western society, call ourselves moral and just while people in our countries starve on the street or have people forced to decide to buy food or medicine
Because the alternative is tyranny.

while the hardest decision an elite must make is which car to drive that day.
Only a tiny minority of people live like that and those that do do so because they and their predecessors have worked hard for it over the years. As ever, socialists seem to care about helping the poor only half as much as they care about hurting the rich.

The Government should also make sure employers provide a living wage to all
So you mean a minimum wage? Yes, that means that small business will fail, resulting in job losses, resulting in unemployment. If you price up the cost of labour, business will economise. Someone arbitarily defining a sum below which others are not allowed to work is not liberty.

and provide jobs to those who cant find work.
The two are mutually exclusive. You can have a minimum wage or you can have low unemployment. Unless of course you propose employing people to do meaningless jobs at the public expense and in essense subsidise failure at the cost of the successful.

Keep in mind: avg. life expect. of US=77.4 yrs, Cuba=77.0yrs. cost of healthcare(avg) US=$2,000 per yr. Cuba=$20.
This is untrue. Cubans pay no less than Americans, but Cubans are forced to pay it in tax rather than paying in voluntarily in health insurance. I should also point out that the pre-tax earnings of an average Cuban come to $3,000. The pre-tax earnings of an average American come to $43,555. A Cuba is far poorer than an American.

Long live the great workers revolution!!
Hail tyranny and oppression subsidising failure if you wish, but I shall not.

First, I doubt this will happen ;) But if did, sure, we'll accept it.
History does not support this untried assertion. After the Russian revolution, Lenin did indeed abolish a democratic Parliament that voted against the Bolsheviks "in the name of the revolution".

How nice you completely forgot Cuba is a dictatorship where all things pro-democracy are banned! And is Cuba really that socialist? I doubt it. Tourists are only allowed to spend dollars, just to keep the cash flowing in. The country itself rules, but the government doesn't. Cuba is hardly the socialist example you people love to put forward.

PS: what's your source?

Well, its the dictatorship of the workers, and its a hell of a lot more democratoc then a countrey where the president got elected by his own brother, not to menchon U.S backed countryes in Latin America..
*cough* united fruit controlled*cough*

First, I doubt this will happen ;) But if did, sure, we'll accept it.
I was actually thinking about Lenin, who was initially in favour of democracy, until his party was defeated in ellections. ;)

Equality is not desirable. Equality means that the best worker and the worst are rewarded equally. Equality means that the most dedicated individual receives no more from society than the least dedicated. Equality means that to maximise your success you must maximise your need and to minimise your failure you must minimise your ability.


This is a meanlingless statement. It's a system of government designed for lazy / unproductive people, but it is a system of government set against successful, hardworking individuals. It also inherently destroys liberty as peoples' property must be taken and "redistributed" and people are no longer able to sell their abilities on the job market or buy those of others in the form of products.


No they are not.


The fact is that you do have to pay for them because they dont come from nowhere. The only difference between socialism and capitalism is that in capitalism you have a choice of whether or not to pay for them and a choice of who to pay and how much and specifically what for, whereas under socialism you are forced on pain of imprisonment.


Because the alternative is tyranny.


Only a tiny minority of people live like that and those that do do so because they and their predecessors have worked hard for it over the years. As ever, socialists seem to care about helping the poor only half as much as they care about hurting the rich.


So you mean a minimum wage? Yes, that means that small business will fail, resulting in job losses, resulting in unemployment. If you price up the cost of labour, business will economise. Someone arbitarily defining a sum below which others are not allowed to work is not liberty.


The two are mutually exclusive. You can have a minimum wage or you can have low unemployment. Unless of course you propose employing people to do meaningless jobs at the public expense and in essense subsidise failure at the cost of the successful.


This is untrue. Cubans pay no less than Americans, but Cubans are forced to pay it in tax rather than paying in voluntarily in health insurance. I should also point out that the pre-tax earnings of an average Cuban come to $3,000. The pre-tax earnings of an average American come to $43,555. A Cuba is far poorer than an American.
".

"Forced" to have free health care, this must be the worst pro Capitalist argument so far

"Forced" to have free health care, this must be the worst pro Capitalist argument so far
There is no such thing as free healthcare. You can choose to pay for it through insurance or you can be forced to pay for it through taxes. Your failure to understand this is far more indicative of your ignorance than the validity of my arguments.

We need a socialist society because it is the only true system of equality and the only system of government designed for the people. Medical services, housing, and education are inherent rights. These are things people shouldnt have to pay for or struggle to obtain.
And you call yourself a "Darwinist?" I would think your skull would implode from the sheer weight of cognitive dissonance! :p

We don't need socialism. What we need is a species that aren't cunting bastards.

And you call yourself a "Darwinist?" I would think your skull would implode from the sheer weight of cognitive dissonance! :p

*cough*Darwinia (http://www.darwinia.co.uk/)*cough*

History does not support this untried assertion. After the Russian revolution, Lenin did indeed abolish a democratic Parliament that voted against the Bolsheviks "in the name of the revolution".

The Russian revolution situation was far more complex than what you make it appear to be. First, the Parliament was not that much democratic, the elections were runned in very tensed situation. Then, if you look at the result of the elections, the party which had the majority was the "Socialist-Revolutionnary Party". It was a chaotic party, with very different internal views, which won only because it was the party of the peasants, who were 80% of 1917 Russia. The second party was the Bolshevik party, far ahead of all right-wing and far ahead of the Menschevik.

During the October Revolution, the Bolshevik party and a part of the Socialist-Revolutionnary Party (which could have represented the majority of the population, depends how much of the voters for the SR did support this Revolution, which is not known) and gave the powers to the Soviets, which, at least in theory, are more democratic than a parliament.

Then, during the civil war, the Blosheviks removed the power from the Soviets, and went back to a more central authority.

As you can see, the situation is far from being simple, all that happened in a country which never knew any real democracy before, and which was both inside WW1 and a civil war, not really the best conditions for creating a democracy. So the Russian revolution can very hardly be considered as an example to say: "if communists are elected in a democracy, they'll lead to dictatorship".

How could this simple-minded idealist claim to be a darwinist, 'darwinistan'? I am an *actual* Darwinist, and by abolishing the government, the ensuing state of nature would weed out the weak and unproductive. Once they're all dead, the only ones left would be the perfect society of productive people. There'd be no need for social welfare or any of that, because anyone nonproductive would quickly starve to death. I admit, communism would be nice, if it worked, but an unmotivated society is an unproductive one, which is why the ultimate society would be an anarchist one.

"if communists are elected in a democracy, they'll lead to dictatorship".
Well they almost invariably will by nature of this authoritarian views, but that was not my point. My point was that your original assertion that a Socialist could never, ever possibly do such an evil nasty thing as go against a democratic election (I mean obviously it's only capitalists with their "freedom" and "self determination" that do things like that!) is simply untrue. You can say "A Communist Government wouldnt necessarily go back on a democratic election," but you cant just generalise to say that it never would.

I was actually thinking about Lenin, who was initially in favour of democracy, until his party was defeated in ellections. ;)

His party wasn't defeated in elections. His party, which targetted as factory workers, won with an overwelming majority the urban vote. The rural vote (80% of Russian were still rural in the 1917 Russia) was won by the Socialist Revolutionnary Party, which had no real program, except wanting socialism and being the peasant party. Lenin was supported by a very significant part of the SR Party, but there are no historical figures if the part of the SR which supported Lenin was, or was not, the majority of the SR. Or more exactly, if Bolshevik party + part of the SR supporting Lenin was, or was not, the majority of the population.

His party wasn't defeated in elections.
Yes it was.

His party, which targetted as factory workers, won with an overwelming majority the urban vote.
Democracy means "Governance by the people" not "Governance by the key demographic of the Bolshevik Party."

The rural vote (80% of Russian were still rural in the 1917 Russia) was won by the Socialist Revolutionnary Party, which had no real program, except wanting socialism and being the peasant party.
Ah, so the people only get to choose for so long as the Bolshevik Party approves of their choice?

Lenin was supported by a very significant part of the SR Party, but there are no historical figures if the part of the SR which supported Lenin was, or was not, the majority of the SR. Or more exactly, if Bolshevik party + part of the SR supporting Lenin was, or was not, the majority of the population.
The SRs were a seperate party and parties were not just platforms for supporting Lenin. You cant say "It's ok to remove the people's choice because the people's choice would probably have sided with me anyway, I guess."

Heresy! The rich have the God-given right to exploit the working class. How dare you question the policies of Bush. I suspect you're in league with the terrorists and the gay agenda.

My point was that your original assertion that a Socialist could never, ever possibly do such an evil nasty thing as go against a democratic election is simply untrue.

That's not what I said. Communists (or socialists) are divided between the "democratic communists" and the "authoritarian communists". What I am supporting is democratic communism, which is IMHO the only real communism, and which would not go against the results of election.

In the real world, "authoritarian communists" mostly exist in non-democratic countries, or countries with a very recent, or very limited democracy, while in more democratic countries, the communist parties are nearly always supporting "democratic communism". So the risk of a communist party destroying an already existing democracy is very low.

I never said no one prentending to be communist would ever do such a nasty evil thing. I said that in history, we can see a lot of examples of capitalists not accepting the democratic victory of a "socialist" or "communist" party, but nearly no example of a communist or socialist party refusing to accept the victory of a capitalist party in an already existing democracy.

How could this simple-minded idealist claim to be a darwinist, 'darwinistan'? I am an *actual* Darwinist, and by abolishing the government, the ensuing state of nature would weed out the weak and unproductive. Once they're all dead, the only ones left would be the perfect society of productive people. There'd be no need for social welfare or any of that, because anyone nonproductive would quickly starve to death. I admit, communism would be nice, if it worked, but an unmotivated society is an unproductive one, which is why the ultimate society would be an anarchist one.


Yawn. Social Darwinism is such a stupid concept. It is widely recognised that humans have evolved a sense of morality and selflessness to become more successful - a team is always more successful than a group of individuals. Why do you think insects which work as a colony can create such more advanced and intricate habitats than loners? And don't say they are unthinking robots, because there is often in-fighting in colonies and competition over who gets to lay the eggs - insects have individualist instincts, but can suppress them to accomplish more as a group.

In fact, i've often thought that those who think "I'm a complete selfish bastard, therefore everyone else is! It's human nature, and it's good! We shouldn't help anyone else but ourselves because it's unnatural to do so" are to a degree less well evolved than those who are willing to work for others as well as themselves. Part of being a human is caring about other people and having a degree of natural compassion.

I usually don't come into forums but for this I have to. Capitialisim is the most evil, corrupt and morally inept system of government ever created. Communisim has never been implemented properly. Russia did it wrong and now everyone thinks thats how it works. Its meant to have a ruling body of many people, not a dictatorship. One day all people will realize what I have and see that Communisim, True Communisim is the way forward. As the great Che Guevara once said, 'It is better to die standing than to live on your knees'. Irrelevant I know but still great. One day Capitialism will fall and on that day we will have equality on earth and George Bush will be dead.

I usually don't come into forums but for this I have to. Capitialisim is the most evil, corrupt and morally inept system of government ever created. Communisim has never been implemented properly.

Sadly it is quite likely it *can't* be implemented properly. Humans simply are not nice enough.

You cant say "It's ok to remove the people's choice because the people's choice would probably have sided with me anyway, I guess."

That's exactly the principle of representative democracy, and that's why many don't considere representative democracy to be real democracy, and that's why many try to create more real democracies (like the Soviets system was designed to be, at first).

In representative democracy, you vote for people (or parties) and then they do as they please, because "well they voted for us so they support whatever we do". This is not real democracy. If you look at France, 90% of the elected representatives voted "YES" to the European "Constitution". 55% of the people voted "NO". And situations like that happen very often in representative democracies, but most of the time, there is no referendum, and the decisions of the representatives is the one which becomes law, not the will of the people.

Communists, since the beginning (read Marx) criticizes this representative democracy, and want to build a more real democracy, where _people_ do the choices, and not elected representatives.

That's exactly the principle of representative democracy, and that's why many don't considere representative democracy to be real democracy, and that's why many try to create more real democracies (like the Soviets system was designed to be, at first).

In representative democracy, you vote for people (or parties) and then they do as they please, because "well they voted for us so they support whatever we do". This is not real democracy. If you look at France, 90% of the elected representatives voted "YES" to the European "Constitution". 55% of the people voted "NO". And situations like that happen very often in representative democracies, but most of the time, there is no referendum, and the decisions of the representatives is the one which becomes law, not the will of the people.

Communists, since the beginning (read Marx) criticizes this representative democracy, and want to build a more real democracy, where _people_ do the choices, and not elected representatives.

May I suggest that "real democracy" can be defined as "direct democracy" which in turn is considered MOB RULE, which is not an effecient form of government rule. Also you mentioned that representatives don't always vote the way the people want, well keep in mind that they are in actuality only responsible to those who actually voted, altough 45% voted 'yes' on the European Constitution, if 90% of those who voted yes voted on their representatives, than there government actually worked quite well. Finally most countries with representative democracies allow people to "vote-out" those officials who do not represent them as they said they would, however, this does not happen very often but don't blame the system blame the in-active public.

Sadly it is quite likely it *can't* be implemented properly. Humans simply are not nice enough.

It's funny to see this is always the latest argument of pro-capitalists who can't defend their system anymore...

How many times should we explain that humans are what the society make them to be ? Is it surprising, in a system which rewards and calls upon egoism and selfishness, that people become egoist and selfish ? You know, it's akin to the sad reality of beaten kids: people who were beaten when they were kids will far more often (not always, hopefully) beat their own kids.

The key attribute of homo sapiens sapiens, the ones which allowed us to survive while some, like home sapeins nehenderalensis (who were stronger, more robust, and probably even smarter than us) did not, is our ability to adapt. Men are the animals who know the less when born (most animals know to walk, swim, ... at birth, we don't, and it's true for many other things). We are the less hard-wired of the animals, the more able to learn, and adapt to our environement.

When the environement is the reckless, selfish, survival of fitest law of the jungle that capitalism is, people become reckless and selfish.

Another point that those "human nature" defenders never look at is the huge diversity of men. Why are some people so selfish, while some are so selfless ? Why did thousands of european people crossed the borders and gave their lives for their spanish bretheren during the spanish civil war ? They had nothing to win for themselves. They did it out of generosity, altruism, and feeling of duty towards their bretheren. Those were as much human as the most selfish CEO (and I would say they were even more human). And look at the thousands, if not millions, in the whole world, who give a lot of their own energy, time or money in order to help various chartity ?

Why are some people so nice, and some so selfish ? Would you say it's genetics ? Of course, it's not. It's the way we were raised, the experience we had, the teachings we received, the society in which we lived.

A communist (or socialist) society, by organising solidarity, mutual help at all levels, by making people work together for the society, by making people used at taking decisions together in a direct democracy and not selfishly in their own corner, will make _more_ people to be "nice". Even on the people who already are what they are, a more human and less selfish society will encourage people to behave nicely.

It's a mistery why, during the whole XIXest century, the lowest crime rate in Paris was during the 70 days of Paris' Commune. The time during which there was no police nor army (both disbanded by the Commune), and during which the National Guard was too busy fighting the Versaillais to do anything about internal security. It's because it was the time where people felt they were working together, building a better future together, helping each other.

Another point that those "human nature" defenders never look at is the huge diversity of men. Why are some people so selfish, while some are so selfless ? Why did thousands of european people crossed the borders and gave their lives for their spanish bretheren during the spanish civil war ? They had nothing to win for themselves. They did it out of generosity, altruism, and feeling of duty towards their bretheren. Those were as much human as the most selfish CEO (and I would say they were even more human). And look at the thousands, if not millions, in the whole world, who give a lot of their own energy, time or money in order to help various chartity ?
Oh yeah, the fascist regimes and the soviets with their supplies to the Spanish civil war never had their own interest in mind to have another country like their own in Europe. No they were being 'selfless'.

Did you ever think that the only reason France was able to continue to have a democratic socialist party was because of the United States Marshall plan? I mean France was in terrible shape after the War and if it weren't for the US providing, Oh I don't know; food, money and well nearly every other supply imaginable to get their economy back up and running. Do ignore that part of history.

Heresy! The rich have the God-given right to exploit the working class. How dare you question the policies of Bush. I suspect you're in league with the terrorists and the gay agenda.
What an incredibly thought-provoking and convincing post this is. You, sir, are contributing to this debate no end!

That's not what I said. Communists (or socialists) are divided between the "democratic communists" and the "authoritarian communists". What I am supporting is democratic communism, which is IMHO the only real communism, and which would not go against the results of election.
Well again, this is just a question of definitions. It's all well and good saying "I define communism as being something that wouldnt go against an election therefore communism never goes against elections." The fact is that the definition is wrong, and a great many Communists would go against the result of an election. What you really meant to say in your original post is "I would accept a negative result" not "Communists would accept a negative result."

In the real world, "authoritarian communists" mostly exist in non-democratic countries, or countries with a very recent, or very limited democracy, while in more democratic countries, the communist parties are nearly always supporting "democratic communism". So the risk of a communist party destroying an already existing democracy is very low.
This isnt true. Authoritarian Communists exist in western nations, they just dont succeed because they actually need to convince people that their absurd views are right rather than just being able to overthrow the government with a tiny minority of public support like the Bolsheviks did.

I never said no one prentending to be communist would ever do such a nasty evil thing.
Lenin and Stalin were both communists. Your assertion that they were "just pretending" to distance yourself from their misdoings is incorrect.

I said that in history, we can see a lot of examples of capitalists not accepting the democratic victory of a "socialist" or "communist" party,
By definition in a capitalist state power is in the hands of the individuals, not a collective or state. A government that would turn its back on an election is not truely capitalist. There is nothing, however, in Communist theory that requires Communists to respect the sovereignty of the individual. Indeed, Marx encourages the idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" where one class holds all the power over all the others.

but nearly no example of a communist or socialist party refusing to accept the victory of a capitalist party in an already existing democracy.
Russia was a democracy when Lenin abolished the Constituent Assembly because he didnt win *shrug* There are few other examples because I cant think of a single other Communist state that even bothered with a democratic parliament.

I usually don't come into forums but for this I have to. Capitialisim is the most evil, corrupt and morally inept system of government ever created.
Ah yes, because freedom is "evil", being allowed to keep the rewards you earned is "corrupt" and not being forced to give all your money away is "morally inept".

Communisim has never been implemented properly. Russia did it wrong and now everyone thinks thats how it works.
That's because Communism doesnt work. The Russians tried to implement it and Lenin and Stalin were honest to god communists. The problem is that it just doesnt work, and you end up with a psychotic dictatorship.

Its meant to have a ruling body of many people, not a dictatorship.
That's called a "democracy". Communism is not required.

One day all people will realize what I have and see that Communisim, True Communisim is the way forward.
Define "True Communism".

As the great Che Guevara once said, 'It is better to die standing than to live on your knees'. Irrelevant I know but still great.
Che Guevera did not say that, he was quoting Emiliano Zapata.

One day Capitialism will fall and on that day we will have equality on earth and George Bush will be dead.
Yep. Everyone will be equal. It will be impossible to improve yourself. If you try you will be pushed back into your place. Society will be reduced to the level of the lowest common denominator and at the merest hint of success the state will take everything you own and leave you in the gutter with the rest of society. What wonders we have to look forward to.

That's exactly the principle of representative democracy, and that's why many don't considere representative democracy to be real democracy, and that's why many try to create more real democracies (like the Soviets system was designed to be, at first).
Yeah true. I mean, every representative democracy promptly abolishes itself and appoints a Supreme Leader to rule over us all from the Central Soviet.

In representative democracy, you vote for people (or parties) and then they do as they please, because "well they voted for us so they support whatever we do". This is not real democracy. If you look at France, 90% of the elected representatives voted "YES" to the European "Constitution". 55% of the people voted "NO". And situations like that happen very often in representative democracies, but most of the time, there is no referendum, and the decisions of the representatives is the one which becomes law, not the will of the people.
If you have referrenda on everything then practically nothing will get done and whoever the drafts the law and the media will essentially hold all power. There is a trade off between theoretical democracy and the ability to get things done.

Communists, since the beginning (read Marx) criticizes this representative democracy, and want to build a more real democracy, where _people_ do the choices, and not elected representatives.
Yeah they want a democracy where El Presidente does what the people want. They dont want him to do it? Send a few to the Gulags and shoot some more in the street and you'll bring them round to your way of seeing things.

Oh yeah, the fascist regimes and the soviets with their supplies to the Spanish civil war never had their own interest in mind to have another country like their own in Europe. No they were being 'selfless'.

I was not speaking of the countries who helped one side or another one. I was speaking of the thousands of volunteers from the International Brigades, who gave their lives in the Spanish civil war. If giving your life to help your bretheren is selfish, then this kind of selfishness will work very well in socialism. Sure, they may have think "ok, I may survive it, and if I do, then it may help my own ideal to be implemented in my own country later on"... but using this reasoning, working for the community in a socialist system is far more rewarding, and far less dangerous.

Did you ever think that the only reason France was able to continue to have a democratic socialist party was because of the United States Marshall plan?

Actually, the USA refused to include France in the Marshall plan until the Communist Party (PCF) was excluded from the governement, despite the fact that, at that time, the PCF was the first party of France, and despite the fact that Paris and the suburbs had been liberated from the nazi by a popular insurection organised by the PCF and the CGT (PCF-controlled labor union), and not by either the US nor De Gaulle.

The Communist Party managed to build the Social Security system between 1944 and 1946, before the Marshall plan, and before they got excluded from the governement. And it worked well.

And if the Marshall plan was a great help to recover from the war, but it had nothing to do with the actual topic. And you also probably overestimate the Marshall plan, it was not as huge as you may think it was.

I mean France was in terrible shape after the War and if it weren't for the US providing, Oh I don't know; food, money and well nearly every other supply imaginable to get their economy back up and running.

France economy was already mostly back up and running before the Marshall plan. Sure, the Marshall plan helped to rebuild a bit faster, but most of restarting work was done between 1944 and 1946, while there was no Marshall plan, and while the PCF was still a strong part of the governement.

It's funny to see this is always the latest argument of pro-capitalists who can't defend their system anymore...

Actually I pretty pro-communist. But only in theory, not in practice.

I was not speaking of the countries who helped one side or another one. I was speaking of the thousands of volunteers from the International Brigades, who gave their lives in the Spanish civil war. If giving your life to help your bretheren is selfish, then this kind of selfishness will work very well in socialism. Sure, they may have think "ok, I may survive it, and if I do, then it may help my own ideal to be implemented in my own country later on"... but using this reasoning, working for the community in a socialist system is far more rewarding, and far less dangerous.
Your probably right that I do over estimate the over all effectiveness of the Marshal Plan and the US forgiving the debts of the wartorn countries, probably most notably Germany...both times. However, the countries the US backed after the war developed stable economies while the Soviet satellite states were only held together with force.

Now onto those thousands of volunteers. Were they all for the revolutionaries, or was it split in between the revolutionaries and the Nationalists?

Now onto those thousands of volunteers. Were they all for the revolutionaries, or was it split in between the revolutionaries and the Nationalists?

The nationalists supported Franco overall. The anti-facist league was overwhelmingly a socialist/communist army, and did indeed comprise of many people from other countries who came to Spain to fight for an end to facism and to support the left wing movement.

The nationalists supported Franco overall. The anti-facist league was overwhelmingly a socialist/communist army, and did indeed comprise of many people from other countries who came to Spain to fight for an end to facism and to support the left wing movement.

Mistake made there on first sentance- I really hate this no-edit thing. I meant to say the volunteers fought on the anti-facist side overall.

What you really meant to say in your original post is "I would accept a negative result" not "Communists would accept a negative result."

What I said in my post is "Democratic communists (which are the major communist parties in most, if not all, democratic countries) would accept a negative election result."

Lenin and Stalin were both communists. Your assertion that they were "just pretending" to distance yourself from their misdoings is incorrect.

Lenin was a communist. He used means I don't support, but which were understandable in the complex situation he was in. Stalin was definetly not a communist, or even close to it.

By definition in a capitalist state power is in the hands of the individuals, not a collective or state.

Which is the opposite of democracy. Democracy means the power in the hands of the _people_, not in the hand of few who succeeded, while the others have no power. What you argue for is called "plutocracy", not "democracy".

A government that would turn its back on an election is not truely capitalist.

That's what all capitalists did, everywhere in the world. Because capitalism is about a few people holding the power. The owners of the big buisness, the ones who do have the power in a capitalist system, will never accept to lose this power. And since the whole system encourages and rewards selfishness and recklessness, the owners of big buisnesses will never hesistate on what means to use to keep their powers - if they would be limited by their consciousness, they wouldn't have succeded in the jungle of capitalism before.

There is nothing, however, in Communist theory that requires Communists to respect the sovereignty of the individual.

You really should read Marx, and see that empowering a real sovereignity of every single individual, free from the chains of domination, is the ultimate purpose of communism.

Indeed, Marx encourages the idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" where one class holds all the power over all the others.

Marx encourages the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as a TRANSITION from capitalism to communism, Marx never said that it was a goal in itself. Then, if look beyond the words, to what Marx really meant by "dictatorship of the proletariat", you'll see that it's far more democratic that what our democracies are. The example of "dictatorship of the proletariat", for Marx, was Paris' Commune, which was the most democratic governement France ever had. Dictatorship, for Marx, means a strong power, but not a non-democratic one. And the "proletariat" being the vast majority of the population in capitalist countries, saying that the "proletariat" should rule is not anti-democratic at all.

The problem occured when Lenin tried to applied it to pre-capitalist Russia, because the peasants, and not the proletariat, was the majority. But it has nothing to do with Marxism, because Marx only spoke about capitalist countries.

Russia was a democracy when Lenin abolished the Constituent Assembly

You don't become a democracy in a few weeks. Prentending that is just being completly blind about reality.

There are few other examples because I cant think of a single other Communist state that even bothered with a democratic parliament.

Paris' Commune ? Allende's Chile ? Chavez' Venezuella ?

not being forced to give all your money away is "morally inept".

It is not YOUR money. It's the wealth that was created by the workers, but taken away from them by the capitalist system.

That's called a "democracy". Communism is not required.

In a democracy, the people rule. If vast areas of everyone lives (wealth creation and distribution, and more specifically housing, health care, education, food, ...) are not controlled by the people but by a few wealthy individuals, as it is under capitalism, it is not democracy, but plutocracy.

It will be impossible to improve yourself.

That's the exact opposite of communism. Communists always value education and free time, as they are both required to improve yourself. The same way that having an housing, being healthy, and having food are required to be able to improve yourself. Communists want to grant everyone the physical conditions required for them to be able to develop themselves, to develop their own potential, and to constantly improve themselves.

Yeah they want a democracy where El Presidente does what the people want. They dont want him to do it? Send a few to the Gulags and shoot some more in the street and you'll bring them round to your way of seeing things.

If only people knew about they speak about... in a communist system, there is no president. There is not even a state.

Now onto those thousands of volunteers. Were they all for the revolutionaries, or was it split in between the revolutionaries and the Nationalists?

There may have been a few people coming to Spain and fighting to help Franco, but not a noticeable amount. But thousands of volunteers came from all Europe to fight with the Spanish Republican (ie, the ones defending the elected leftsih governement), inside the International Brigads.

We need a socialist society because it is the only true system of equality and the only system of government designed for the people. Medical services, housing, and education are inherent rights. These are things people shouldnt have to pay for or struggle to obtain.

How can we, as a western society, call ourselves moral and just while people in our countries starve on the street or have people forced to decide to buy food or medicine while the hardest decision an elite must make is which car to drive that day. The Government should also make sure employers provide a living wage to all and provide jobs to those who cant find work.

Keep in mind: avg. life expect. of US=77.4 yrs, Cuba=77.0yrs. cost of healthcare(avg) US=$2,000 per yr. Cuba=$20. Long live the great workers revolution!!

If you don't think the system of welfare and social security in the US is socialism, I don't know what you're thinking of.

A 17 year old with two kids and one more on the way, who has no job and no intention of getting one, gets a free apartment and food while I work my rear off just to make ends meet. Tell me how this is socially just or equitable, please. And don't tell me it doesn't happen -- I work in a school and can't tell you how many times I have heard this plan verbalized and successfully put into effect.

That's what all capitalists did, everywhere in the world. Because capitalism is about a few people holding the power. The owners of the big buisness, the ones who do have the power in a capitalist system, will never accept to lose this power. And since the whole system encourages and rewards selfishness and recklessness, the owners of big buisnesses will never hesistate on what means to use to keep their powers - if they would be limited by their consciousness, they wouldn't have succeded in the jungle of capitalism before.

But in a true capitalist state there is no big business just numerous small operations that is virtually cost free to get in and out of any specific business. There is no big business in TRUE capitalism.

It is not YOUR money. It's the wealth that was created by the workers, but taken away from them by the capitalist system.

No, when I worked as a stocker that money I got wasn't mine at all. Not a cent that I was paid was truly my money. But rather the business owners money, even when I cashed that check which lowered their bank accounts and increased mine it was still there money.

If only people knew about they speak about... in a communist system, there is no president. There is not even a state.
If there is no state, how is there law? Or is it in the pure communist societies all crimes are obsolete?

There may have been a few people coming to Spain and fighting to help Franco, but not a noticeable amount. But thousands of volunteers came from all Europe to fight with the Spanish Republican (ie, the ones defending the elected leftsih governement), inside the International Brigads.
There were significant numbers of Irish volunteers fighting for Franco. However, this is irrelevant for the value of a certain ideology. Throughout the time, people have given their lives for many wrong beliefs.

Two problem I see with this idea of becoming a socialism/communist state is:
First I would like to establish that the US is a very militant country. Look at how man wars we have put oursselves in. Our are is the most ready and quick acting in the world
1) A socialistic economy system limits the economy greatly. (think, would you want to do your hardist work if you will be paid the same as if you barely slipped by) and the US hasa very high budget and 'some' debts to pay
2)a socialistic government would give to much power to out corrupting militant government

But in a true capitalist state there is no big business just numerous small operations that is virtually cost free to get in and out of any specific business. There is no big business in TRUE capitalism.

This is utterly ridiculous. The more savage the capitalism is, the more you have big business and the hardest it is for small ones to survive. All the laws protecting the small business against unfair competition are a step aside true capitalism, and even with those, small business can hardly survive.

And you also forget that many, many fields are network based, and therefore completly impossible to handle by small business only.

If there is no state, how is there law? Or is it in the pure communist societies all crimes are obsolete?

In pure communist society, crime is very low (you can see all around the world, and all around history, that the more capitalist the society is, the more crime there is, and the more equal and social the society is, the less crime there is). But not "state" doesn't mean no law. It's impossible to give a very precise description of what true communism will be, because we are very, very far from it. But basically, it means a much more direct democracy, into which there is no centralised state as we know it, but a flexible way of deciding and enforcing laws, depending directly on the will of people (with no people elected for x years and able to do whatever they want during those x years), of the fields (no "president" that covers everything, but people handling "education", while some handle "health care" and so on, and people being able to take different decisions in different areas), and so on.

One thing that I haven't seen addressed here, and I may have just missed it, is the fact that the US is a corporate welfare state. It is all very well and good to say that capitalism is the way to go, but using the United States as an example is ludicrous. Huge businesses that have no problems making profits are subsidized by every level of government. They are given tax breaks to go into an area, often forcing out of business smaller businesses who don't get these same tax breaks and therefore have larger overhead expenses. I could go on, but if we took the government spending ONLY out of these corporate subsidies and put it into education and health care, we would have a much healthier, better educated society.

There were significant numbers of Irish volunteers fighting for Franco. However, this is irrelevant for the value of a certain ideology. Throughout the time, people have given their lives for many wrong beliefs.

My point was not in saying if they were right or wrong. My point is to say that human beings are not selfish bastards who only care about their own interests, but that many, many human beings gave a lot, sometimes even their own lives, for something greater than their own selves. The ability to give to the community, to give without seeking reward, to go as far as to sacrifice yourself for others is one of the highest quality of human beings, and this ability is far more abundant that it may appear at first glance, even if the society itself encourages selfishness and discourages any collective feelings.

One thing that I haven't seen addressed here, and I may have just missed it, is the fact that the US is a corporate welfare state. It is all very well and good to say that capitalism is the way to go, but using the United States as an example is ludicrous. Huge businesses that have no problems making profits are subsidized by every level of government. They are given tax breaks to go into an area, often forcing out of business smaller businesses who don't get these same tax breaks and therefore have larger overhead expenses. I could go on, but if we took the government spending ONLY out of these corporate subsidies and put it into education and health care, we would have a much healthier, better educated society.
But if they were educated they would ask questions and they wouldn't accept anything they are told. Not quite what the ruling class want.

This is utterly ridiculous. The more savage the capitalism is, the more you have big business and the hardest it is for small ones to survive. All the laws protecting the small business against unfair competition are a step aside true capitalism, and even with those, small business can hardly survive.

And you also forget that many, many fields are network based, and therefore completly impossible to handle by small business only.

No you must have some faulty notions of how capitalist economics if you think it supports big business. According the classical economics, the root of capitalism, there are suppost to me to many players in every field for any single one of them to be able to impact the price. The quality would roughly be the same, if anyone tried to sell for more, they won't sell cause you can get the exact same product for less, if you sell for less you won't make profit therefore you will always sell at market price. That is how capitalism is suppose to work. Does it work that way? No of course not. Pure capitalism is as much of a dream as pure socialism.

In pure communist society, crime is very low (you can see all around the world, and all around history, that the more capitalist the society is, the more crime there is, and the more equal and social the society is, the less crime there is). But not "state" doesn't mean no law. It's impossible to give a very precise description of what true communism will be, because we are very, very far from it. But basically, it means a much more direct democracy, into which there is no centralised state as we know it, but a flexible way of deciding and enforcing laws, depending directly on the will of people (with no people elected for x years and able to do whatever they want during those x years), of the fields (no "president" that covers everything, but people handling "education", while some handle "health care" and so on, and people being able to take different decisions in different areas), and so on.

Seeing there is still crime, you need a method or system of handling that crime. Now it may not be theft, but i don't think sociopaths will likely be able to get over that lil flaw in their head that makes them insane. There are some huge problems with doing justice by a direct vote. Uniformity would be nearly impossible in rulings. Ancient Athens had that system of justice which led to the forced suicide of one of the greatest thinkers of all time, all on bogus charges cause he got to popular. There needs to be uniformity in the justice system and a certain amount of unbias.

Democratic Capitalist-Socialism rocks!

However, if you look at more western socialist nations, you will begin to see the very reasons why we do NOT need socialism. Yes, you get many of these "rights" like healthcare, housing etc.. but your economies are scarely able to sustain them. As it the reality for most European nations today on the brink of economic distaster, many of these socalist systems are under grave threat.

Sweden: 6% unemployment rate (2005 est.)
Denmark: 5,7% unemployment rate (2005 est.)
Germany: 11,6% unemployment rate (2005 est.)
France: 10% unemployment rate (2005 est.)

You are obviously looking at the wrong countries. France and Germany are both less socialist than Sweden and Denmark.

If anything, the more socialist countries in Europe are worried that their economies will overheat, while the less socialist countries are worried that their economies will collapse.

Isn't it also all rather funny that those who promote socialism and rights for the working class, all seem to come from middle to upper class families who have never associated with someone from the working class in their whole entire existance!

working, middle or upper class, my education is still going to be paid for not by my parents or me, but by the government (who gets paid by the people... ALL the people). Same thing with healthcare.

Everything becomes more expensive, due to the exclusion of foreign countries, and so novelties become things of the past.

...

what? exclusion of foreign countries? That's.. hmm.. let me see.. NATIONALISM and ISOLATION! not socialism.

There are few other examples because I cant think of a single other Communist state that even bothered with a democratic parliament.

quoted from: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107456.html
When elections were held in 1946, Communists became the dominant political party and gained control of the Czechoslovakian government in 1948. Thereafter, the former democracy was turned into a Soviet-style state.

Actually, it's far TOO much attractive to earn money, henceforth all the people who use antisocial, immoral or even criminal ways to earn money.

The incentive to "make money" at all cost is one of the greatest flaw of capitalism, which results in high crime rates, enormous corporate frauds, destruction of the environement, and a complete disregard for human lifes in some of the most important decisions (the ones taken by big corporations, who, nowadays, hold a power comparable, if not higher, than the power of many governement).

So there's too much incentive to make something of yourself, produce/obtain value, etc., and not enough incentive to mooch off of the nanny state and other people who actually do produce the value you're stealing. Riiight....

Money/value/wealth has to come from somewhere. That free education and healthcare? As alien as it is to communists, someone has to pay for those things. Capitalists don't just go *POOF* and make a school appear, and then cruelly withhold their costless magic creation from the po' downtrodden people, all with a mad cackle of course. Allow me to reiterate: Value does not come from thin air and requires effort, ability, motivation, essential liberty to produce, and other value.

The value it costs to build the school or X-ray machine or give the doctor financial motivation to actually cure their patient - someone has to create it. And it isn't the people who mooch off of others for everything. Basically, you're stealing value from the people who actually produce, to enrich the lives of those who produce less or no value - hurting the process and motivation by which value is produced as you do it. Talk about a maximally entropic death spiral....

No you must have some faulty notions of how capitalist economics if you think it supports big business.

I would say exactly the opposite ;)

According the classical economics,

You mean the Smith-Walras model which is completly discredited and obsoleted, because it's so simplist that it doesn't even take into account information, advertising, currency, speculation, ... ? No one serious would ever use the Smith-Walras system nowadays... except to try to lure the ones who don't know how faulty it is.

The quality would roughly be the same, if anyone tried to sell for more, they won't sell cause you can get the exact same product for less, if you sell for less you won't make profit therefore you will always sell at market price. That is how capitalism is suppose to work. Does it work that way? No of course not.

Even within this model, you can't prevent volume effects (if you produce 1000 items, it usually doesn't cost 10x as much as when you produce 100 items), which mathematically favor big players over small players.

And then there are many factors, inherent to capitalism (advertising, asymmetry of information, ability for big players to sell at lower-than-cost prices for a while, the network effects, ...) which makes small players have absolutely no chance against big player. And in there, I don't presuppose any "human nature", I just look at mathemical effects.

Ancient Athens had that system of justice which led to the forced suicide of one of the greatest thinkers of all time, all on bogus charges cause he got to popular. There needs to be uniformity in the justice system and a certain amount of unbias.

No state, as meant in communist theory, doesn't mean anarchy. It doesn't mean that all decisions are always taken directly by a vote. Justice is a good example of something that should not, IMHO, be decided directly be a vote. But having a justice system, independant from direct votes, is not the same as having a "state".

Remember of course the main flaw with capitalism is that not everyone can be rich. There will always be a rich/poor divide.

Yeah, and don't forget the main flaw with humans is that not everyone can be tall. There will always be a tall/short divide.

I mean it isn't fair that all my life I get exploited by the tall people. Why can't I be tall too? Do you tall bastards think you have divine right? Well, think again!

I demand that for every foot of height STOLEN from us, we get a foot of height added! Society isn't fair until everyone is equal!

Off with their heads!


;)

I do like how people are pointing out low crime rates in [more] socialist nations, as if that's some huge incentive. Low crime is often an effect of police state and authoritarian centralist control. 1940 Germany had low crime too. Doesn't impress me.

So there's too much incentive to make something of yourself, produce/obtain value, etc., and not enough incentive to mooch off of the nanny state and other people who actually do produce the value you're stealing. Riiight....

Money/value/wealth has to come from somewhere. That free education and healthcare? As alien as it is to communists, someone has to pay for those things. Capitalists don't just go *POOF* and make a school appear, and then cruelly withhold their costless magic creation from the po' downtrodden people, all with a mad cackle of course. Allow me to reiterate: Value does not come from thin air and requires effort, ability, motivation, essential liberty to produce, and other value.

The value it costs to build the school or X-ray machine or give the doctor financial motivation to actually cure their patient - someone has to create it. And it isn't the people who mooch off of others for everything. Basically, you're stealing value from the people who actually produce, to enrich the lives of those who produce less or no value - hurting the process and motivation by which value is produced as you do it. Talk about a maximally entropic death spiral....

Aristoteles (or however you spell his name) actually had something to say about this.

I can't quote exactly, but if you manage to provide your own education by youself, you don't owe anyone anything. If however, the state provides your education, it should be expected that you return to the state what they gave to you.

Suppose then that a majority of the population can get an education by themselves, leaving a minority that wouldn't get an education anyway. In that case, there doesn't seem to be much problem and a socialist system isn't really needed.

But that is often not the case. Often, a socialist system will give you more educated people, which means more skilled workers, which means less crime and unhappiness and so forth. Long-term, this assumes that the people who were once students supported by those who earned money will support the next generation of students when they are earning money.

Same with healthcare. Person A is sick, Person B helps person A. When Person B is sick, Person A should help Person B. Expand to society.

My point was not in saying if they were right or wrong. My point is to say that human beings are not selfish bastards who only care about their own interests, but that many, many human beings gave a lot, sometimes even their own lives, for something greater than their own selves. The ability to give to the community, to give without seeking reward, to go as far as to sacrifice yourself for others is one of the highest quality of human beings, and this ability is far more abundant that it may appear at first glance, even if the society itself encourages selfishness and discourages any collective feelings.
Human beings, indeed, are not selfish bastards. Altruism is part of the human personality. However, it is not the only one. Altruism and egoism may coexist even inside the same person. Capitalism admits the existance of each of these traits and allows a "controlled" expression of each of them (nobody forces you not to help the needy, but you may keep a significant portion of what you've earned). Communism, on the other hand, totally ignores the egoist component of the human personality. That's where they are wrong.

So there's too much incentive to make something of yourself, produce/obtain value, etc., and not enough incentive to mooch off of the nanny state and other people who actually do produce the value you're stealing. Riiight....

There is too much incentive to earn money, whatever the consequences on others may be, definitely. That's one of most dramatic problems actually.

Money/value/wealth has to come from somewhere. That free education and healthcare? As alien as it is to communists, someone has to pay for those things.

It's funny to see capitalists trying to use marxist rethoric against communism... and to see how it backfires to them, of course.

Communists never speak of "free education" except in a metamorphic way, we speak of "socialised education system" or "socialised health system". We perfectly know that the wealth has to be created. It IS the basis of Marxism.

What you, capitalist, don't understand is that it ALSO applies to your luxury yatch or private mannor. A luxury yatch requires 96 years of human work to be built. Which means that when a rich CEO buys a luxury yatch, he's buying the result of TWO LIFELONG HARD LABOUR. This is what capitalism is about. A few minority buying themselves as a hobby luxury that takes several other people a full life to build.

The wealth you can "earn" on the stock market, renting a flat or making others to work in your land is wealth PRODUCED by workers, as any other wealth.

Capitalists don't just go *POOF* and make a school appear,

No, they use workers to build the school, and the refuse to let the kids of those workers to enter these schools, despite that it was their own parents who built them.

Value does not come from thin air and requires effort, ability, motivation, essential liberty to produce, and other value.

Value, wealth, are created by hard work of the working class.

Basically, you're stealing value from the people who actually produce, to enrich the lives of those who produce less or no value - hurting the process and motivation by which value is produced as you do it.

This is EXACTLY what capitalism do, by taking wealth produced by the workers and giving it to capital owners.

The second point you do not understand is that no one chose to be sick. No one chose to have health problems. The same way no peasant chose to have a hurricane or lack of rain destroy their crop. And so on. This is why civilised socities create SOLIDARITY among its citizens, and protect the unlucky, as much as possible, from the bad consequences of their unluck. This is the basis of civilization. Don't let the ones who have trouble starve, but help them. And be sure that if you go into troubles because you had the bad luck of catching a disease or of seeing your house flooded, the society will be there to help you.

I would say exactly the opposite ;)



You mean the Smith-Walras model which is completly discredited and obsoleted, because it's so simplist that it doesn't even take into account information, advertising, currency, speculation, ... ? No one serious would ever use the Smith-Walras system nowadays... except to try to lure the ones who don't know how faulty it is.
However true that it is an obsolete model that cannot work in the complexity of todays society, it is technically pure capitalism. I did say earlier, I think, that pure capitalism cannot be reached.


Even within this model, you can't prevent volume effects (if you produce 1000 items, it usually doesn't cost 10x as much as when you produce 100 items), which mathematically favor big players over small players.

And then there are many factors, inherent to capitalism (advertising, asymmetry of information, ability for big players to sell at lower-than-cost prices for a while, the network effects, ...) which makes small players have absolutely no chance against big player. And in there, I don't presuppose any "human nature", I just look at mathemical effects.
Economics of scale does cause a problem when oligopolies and monopolies form. Costs millions of dollars to make an automotive plant and the only way to make those cars a reasonable price is to purchase. Imperfect information (advertising) always implicate and forces it farther and farther away from that ideal state. What the US and the rest of the 'capitalist' societies have are far from pure capitalism. Just like the every country that has tried communism is far from the true form of it.



No state, as meant in communist theory, doesn't mean anarchy. It doesn't mean that all decisions are always taken directly by a vote. Justice is a good example of something that should not, IMHO, be decided directly be a vote. But having a justice system, independant from direct votes, is not the same as having a "state".
I was under the impression that the most vital role of government is to secure law and order. The only problem with doing the whole direct voting decision making, is that it really only works in small communities.

I do like how people are pointing out low crime rates in [more] socialist nations, as if that's some huge incentive. Low crime is often an effect of police state and authoritarian centralist control. 1940 Germany had low crime too. Doesn't impress me.

Actually, when you compare the police and jail ratios, you'll that among "democracies" the more capitalist countries have higher police ratio, and higher jail ratios, WHILE they have higher crime rates. The scandinavian countries have among the lowest crime rates of the world, AND the lowest police rates of the world. The example of Paris' Commune is the same: there was no police during Paris' Commune. Only the National Guard, and it was too busy fighting the Versaillais to do anything else.

Higher police usually don't lower crime, it's even counter productive, because it tends to create a repression-violence-repression-violence cycle.

What you, capitalist, don't understand is that it ALSO applies to your luxury yatch or private mannor. A luxury yatch requires 96 years of human work to be built. Which means that when a rich CEO buys a luxury yatch, he's buying the result of TWO LIFELONG HARD LABOUR. This is what capitalism is about. A few minority buying themselves as a hobby luxury that takes several other people a full life to build.

What you, communist, don't understand is that those workers are paid to build it. They're not fucking slaves, as much as it might help your rhetoric to pretend they are.

I like this "you, capitalist" "you, communist" format though. It makes it all seem very dramatic, very Cold War!


No, they use workers to build the school, and the refuse to let the kids of those workers to enter these schools, despite that it was their own parents who built them.


Amusingly, you anticapitalists tend to have a problem with how in capitalism one can inherit wealth from your parents, without having to do work yourself.

Now you are advocating that kids can inherit a school from their parents without having built it themselves. I guess it's okay for poor people to inherit, but not for anyone else!

Human beings, indeed, are not selfish bastards. Altruism is part of the human personality. However, it is not the only one. Altruism and egoism may coexist even inside the same person.

Sure. But which side gets stronger and which side gets weaker depends mostly of education and of the society. This is the one of the most dramatic flaws of capitalism: it encourages, rewards, and increase the egoist part, while it lowers and penalizes the altruist part.

Capitalism admits the existance of each of these traits and allows a "controlled" expression of each of them (nobody forces you not to help the needy, but you may keep a significant portion of what you've earned).

This is a dramatic flaw too. By asking to each people to give or not give according to their will, it rewards the more selfish persons. The most altruist persons will give away to medical research, to helping the poors, to education, to whatever, while the more egoist person will have all the positive side-effects of the altruism of others, but keep all their money. The same goes with pollution: when someone choses to use more expensive but less polluting energy, he suffers from pollution as much as the egoist who chose the less expensive but more polluting energy. This is highly immoral.

Add to that that under capitalism, your power is directly dependant of the money you have (be it through the stock market, or through your ability to buy/not buy stuff), and you have a system that both rewards selfishness AND give more power to more selfish people .... isn't that a disastrous situation ?

Communism, on the other hand, totally ignores the egoist component of the human personality. That's where they are wrong.

No. Communism lowers the incentive to be egoist, and encourages people to be generous. And by making decisions collective, it allows all people to have the same consequences, which leads to a better situation for everyone.

True equality is impossible. Every human being has different skills, and different skills mean different incomes.

So how does socialism fix it? Well, it costs a lot more to make the poor rich than to make the rich poor, so socialism generally ends up pulling society down to its lowest class, which is generally quite inefficient (though not as much as the other way of doing it).

In Capitalism, nobody can 'force' anyone to do anything legally. Nobody is forced to do work. So to the 'poor oppressed workers' who want more pay and more services... Do more work or get more skills for a better paying job. Society should not be based around artificially improving the lives of the lowest level of citizens. You get what your taxes pay for, if you want more privilege, you have to do something to get more money. 10 middle class citizens shouldn't have to pay for work benefits for 1 lower class citizen any more than the bare minimum.

What you, communist, don't understand is that those workers are paid to build it. They're not fucking slaves, as much as it might help your rhetoric to pretend they are.

But they are paid less than the value of the wealth they produce. That's the basis of capitalism. The workers who spent their whole lives making luxury yatch (and remember, you need two full life of work to make one) will never be able to afford one.

Amusingly, you anticapitalists tend to have a problem with how in capitalism one can inherit wealth from your parents, without having to do work yourself.

Now you are advocating that kids can inherit a school from their parents without having built it themselves. I guess it's okay for poor people to inherit, but not for anyone else!

No, I'm advocating that EVERY kid should be welcomed in school and receive high quality education.

We need a socialist society because it is the only true system of equality and the only system of government designed for the people. Medical services, housing, and education are inherent rights. These are things people shouldnt have to pay for or struggle to obtain. And you call yourself a "Darwinist?" I would think your skull would implode from the sheer weight of cognitive dissonance! :p

why?

But they are paid less than the value of the wealth they produce. That's the basis of capitalism. The workers who spent their whole lives making luxury yatch (and remember, you need two full life of work to make one) will never be able to afford one.

Wow. You just broke my cold, black, evil capitalist heart.

Oh no! The poor workers can't afford a yacht! Oh god how will they survive?!?!?

Go find me where luxury yachts are considered a human right and then talk to me.

True equality is impossible. Every human being has different skills, and different skills mean different incomes.

So how does socialism fix it? Well, it costs a lot more to make the poor rich than to make the rich poor, so socialism generally ends up pulling society down to its lowest class, which is generally quite inefficient (though not as much as the other way of doing it).


Or you could, you know, allow inequality of material wealth to exist, but not equality of opportunity?

That way there would still be your precious class system, but it would be based on a meritocracy and not inherited wealth. Or do you believe that anyone who is born to a rich family automatically has more skills than anyone born to a poor family?

have any of you been to a country that was a total soclist place??

I have and there are two classes of people
1- the rich ( government )
2- the poor ( everyone eltes )

also there are few freedoms and health care is crap

where countries in Europe and Canada may seem nice but taxes are running about 80% and getting to a doctor or getting the government to do anything is like trying to put a baby back in to the mother. also in a socialist country there are very few privet business's and most people can not have personal weapons for home protections

Or you could, you know, allow inequality of material wealth to exist, but not equality of opportunity*?

That way there would still be your precious class system, but it would be based on a meritocracy and not inherited wealth. Or do you believe that anyone who is born to a rich family automatically has more skills than anyone born to a poor family?

*inequality of opportunity. Typo.

In Capitalism, nobody can 'force' anyone to do anything legally. Nobody is forced to do work. So to the 'poor oppressed workers' who want more pay and more services... Do more work or get more skills for a better paying job. Society should not be based around artificially improving the lives of the lowest level of citizens. You get what your taxes pay for, if you want more privilege, you have to do something to get more money. 10 middle class citizens shouldn't have to pay for work benefits for 1 lower class citizen any more than the bare minimum.

What about those people born into towns where the education is dismal and they can only take up unskilled jobs?

Of course they aren't being "forced" to take these jobs, but they really have no other choice. No education, living in poverty, etc, prevents them from getting higher education which would give them skills that they could use to bring themselves out of poverty.

Or you could, you know, allow inequality of material wealth to exist, but not equality of opportunity?

That way there would still be your precious class system, but it would be based on a meritocracy and not inherited wealth. Or do you believe that anyone who is born to a rich family automatically has more skills than anyone born to a poor family?

I don't see what's wrong with inheriting money. The right to property means you can do whatever you want with your property. Such a meritocracy thus violates natural laws and rights.

Wow. You just broke my cold, black, evil capitalist heart.

Oh no! The poor workers can't afford a yacht! Oh god how will they survive?!?!?

Go find me where luxury yachts are considered a human right and then talk to me.

Then why should anyone own one ? What right does a stock owner has to buy the sum of work of two human lives ? Did he do 96 years of work in his life ? I doubt it... so why should he own the result of that work ?

But they are paid less than the value of the wealth they produce. That's the basis of capitalism. The workers who spent their whole lives making luxury yatch (and remember, you need two full life of work to make one) will never be able to afford one.

Just because you've calculated that it takes 2 life works to make a luxury yatch doesn't mean two people actually spend their entire lives working on a single boat. Frankly, I doubt your calculation is accurate in the first place.

The basis of capitalism is that people are rewarded for their labor at a price they agree to. They are not rewarded the entirety of the product.

Unless, of course, they're in business for themselves - and anyone can do that, there are over 25 million businesses in the US. Then they reap what they sew AND set their own hours and wages. They also set the "value" of the product by setting the price. This is entirely possible under capitalism.

In socialism however, half of everything you make goes to the government. Half, or more. So for every person, half their lives is spent making sure the government has enough cash for free healthcare... and nuclear weapons, and guns for the military police. Oh, and you "own" it. Yeah, don't you remember? In Soviet Russia, workers in Siberia owned nuclear powered submarines. And if you believe that I've got a bridge you might like to buy.


No, I'm advocating that EVERY kid should be welcomed in school and receive high quality education.

Ah, so public education. Which exists even in capitalist economies.

Wow. You just broke my cold, black, evil capitalist heart.

Oh no! The poor workers can't afford a yacht! Oh god how will they survive?!?!?

Go find me where luxury yachts are considered a human right and then talk to me.

Of course owning a yaught is not a human right. But the point is that currently the rewards of many jobs relative to eachother do not refect the actual difficulty or necessity of them.

Then why should anyone own one ? What right does a stock owner has to buy the sum of work of two human lives ? Did he do 96 years of work in his life ? I doubt it... so why should he own the result of that work ?

Did he force the yachtmakers to make the yachts? No. Because the yacht-makers chose to. The fact that they willingly made the yacht means the buyer has the right to purchase two lifetimes.

Then why should anyone own one ? What right does a stock owner has to buy the sum of work of two human lives ? Did he do 96 years of work in his life ? I doubt it... so why should he own the result of that work ?

Because by paying for that yacht he's compensating the workers. You are also setting up the situation to sound worse than it is. Where did you get these statistics that yacht building = 96 years of labor?

One worker did not spend 96 years building the yacht; not to mention the use of machinery. So, even if the yacht represents 96 years of labor it's not that bad because

a. There is machinery to assist with most of the construction.
b. Workers are being compensated for their labor (money)
c. They work voluntarily.

What about those people born into towns where the education is dismal and they can only take up unskilled jobs?

Of course they aren't being "forced" to take these jobs, but they really have no other choice. No education, living in poverty, etc, prevents them from getting higher education which would give them skills that they could use to bring themselves out of poverty.

Well, obviously there should be public education, as there is in all capitalist societies today. It's clear that throwing more money at the problem isn't the solution (hasn't helped a bit in US today), so that's a government problem of reorganization, not an excuse for reorganizng the entire economy.

Then why should anyone own one ? What right does a stock owner has to buy the sum of work of two human lives ? Did he do 96 years of work in his life ? I doubt it... so why should he own the result of that work ?
You seem to be forgetting that the yacht-makers are selling the yacht. I don't know about you, but to me that sure does imply that maybe they, well, want to sell it. So I really don't see what the problem is if someone purchases one.

Well, obviously there should be public education, as there is in all capitalist societies today. It's clear that throwing more money at the problem isn't the solution (hasn't helped a bit in US today), so that's a government problem of reorganization, not an excuse for reorganizng the entire economy.

But it's the poor public education in that area that caused the problem.

You seem to be forgetting that the yacht-makers are selling the yacht. I don't know about you, but to me that sure does imply that maybe they, well, want to sell it. So I really don't see what the problem is if someone purchases one.

Also, wouldn't it be safe to assume that the ship-builders would be part of a union and thus be recieving fair wages?

But it's the poor public education in that area that caused the problem.

Yes. And? Just putting more money into a system doesn't make it work any more efficiently. Look at American public education. The worst schools get more money and they're still shit.

So you want to reorganize the economy to pursue a solution that has never worked? I think not.

oh wow, thats clever, did you think of it all on your own?

Yes. Yes I did.

But they are paid less than the value of the wealth they produce. That's the basis of capitalism. The workers who spent their whole lives making luxury yatch (and remember, you need two full life of work to make one) will never be able to afford one.
Well, if they don't want to sell the luxury yacht they made for a certain price, they could raise prices, and if the luxury yachts were good enough, people might still buy them. Or perhaps they could build themselves a luxury yacht? Nobody is being forced to build a luxury yacht and then sell it for a certain price to certain people.

Yes. And? Just putting more money into a system doesn't make it work any more efficiently. Look at American public education. The worst schools get more money and they're still shit.

So you want to reorganize the economy to pursue a solution that has never worked? I think not.

Well, I would be the last to recommend socialism; I was merely pointing out some issues and wanted to see people's different takes on them.

What do you think about private education? Could it do a better job in this circumstance?

I, personally, am not sure what to think. You are correct in saying that more money != better solution. The government is doing a poor job here, and while private schools are more efficient, I don't see any incentive for them to setup shop in this poor town.

Then, again, this poor town is not representative of the entire economic situation of the country.

Hmm...

I don't see what's wrong with inheriting money. The right to property means you can do whatever you want with your property. Such a meritocracy thus violates natural laws and rights.

Wow, you'd just LOVE the feudal system wouldn't you? Of course, you'd probably assume you'd be born into an elite family so everything would be hunky dory. Who cares about those filthy serfs? Sure, some may be naturally far more talented, intelligent and hard working than yourself, but to take away a small portion of your fortune to educate them and give them a decent chance to prove themselves would be pure evil wouldn't it?

Did he force the yachtmakers to make the yachts? No. Because the yacht-makers chose to. The fact that they willingly made the yacht means the buyer has the right to purchase two lifetimes.

Yes, they were forced, because it was either that or starving to death. There is absolutely no difference between pointing a gun to somone and saying "do that or I kill" and saying to somone "do that or you'll starve".

Freedom doesn't exist in capitalism, because you first need to eat, drink, sleep in warmth, and so on. So the only freedom workers have is either to die, or to accept working at the price decided by the buisness owner alone, in conditions decided by him alone.

Sure, there can be social help, there can be working codes, minimal wages, and so on. But all that are steps away from capitalism, and in capitalist countries, are far from being enough to change the basic situation. Workers are "wage slaves", who are forced to work and not being paid according to the wealth they really produced, because else, they starve (or die from the cold, or from a disease, or whatever).

Yes, they were forced, because it was either that or starving to death. There is absolutely no difference between pointing a gun to somone and saying "do that or I kill" and saying to somone "do that or you'll starve".

Freedom doesn't exist in capitalism, because you first need to eat, drink, sleep in warmth, and so on. So the only freedom workers have is either to die, or to accept working at the price decided by the buisness owner alone, in conditions decided by him alone.

Sure, there can be social help, there can be working codes, minimal wages, and so on. But all that are steps away from capitalism, and in capitalist countries, are far from being enough to change the basic situation. Workers are "wage slaves", who are forced to work and not being paid according to the wealth they really produced, because else, they starve (or die from the cold, or from a disease, or whatever).

Well, if the worker thinks he's being paid unfairly, there is nothing stopping him from forming a union. He could also start his own business. Or maybe he could work for this "master" of his, save money, quit and get a higher education to get higher-paying jobs?

Yes, they were forced, because it was either that or starving to death. There is absolutely no difference between pointing a gun to somone and saying "do that or I kill" and saying to somone "do that or you'll starve".

Freedom doesn't exist in capitalism, because you first need to eat, drink, sleep in warmth, and so on. So the only freedom workers have is either to die, or to accept working at the price decided by the buisness owner alone, in conditions decided by him alone.

Sure, there can be social help, there can be working codes, minimal wages, and so on. But all that are steps away from capitalism, and in capitalist countries, are far from being enough to change the basic situation. Workers are "wage slaves", who are forced to work and not being paid according to the wealth they really produced, because else, they starve (or die from the cold, or from a disease, or whatever).
What is going to be so different about it in a socialist country then? Surely you aren't saying that if I were in a socialist country and I just refused to work, you'd still give me what I need to survive? Or are those who don't work still going to starve?

We need a socialist society because it is the only true system of equality and the only system of government designed for the people. Medical services, housing, and education are inherent rights. These are things people shouldnt have to pay for or struggle to obtain.

How can we, as a western society, call ourselves moral and just while people in our countries starve on the street or have people forced to decide to buy food or medicine while the hardest decision an elite must make is which car to drive that day. The Government should also make sure employers provide a living wage to all and provide jobs to those who cant find work.

Keep in mind: avg. life expect. of US=77.4 yrs, Cuba=77.0yrs. cost of healthcare(avg) US=$2,000 per yr. Cuba=$20. Long live the great workers revolution!!


And this would be payed by... Goverment theft (i.e. taxes)? Your kind of "Socialism" disgusts me. You don't even understand your own ideology.

I'll let others do the teaching though.

Sure. But which side gets stronger and which side gets weaker depends mostly of education and of the society. This is the one of the most dramatic flaws of capitalism: it encourages, rewards, and increase the egoist part, while it lowers and penalizes the altruist part.
AFAIK, all the capitalist societies have free education (at least 12 years). After that, the best pupils receive scholarships for the university, so all the people have a relativelly equal start in life. What you do after that is entirely up to you.

Regarding altruism, how can you be penalized for that? If you want to help somebody, nobody stops you from doing so.

This is a dramatic flaw too. By asking to each people to give or not give according to their will, it rewards the more selfish persons. The most altruist persons will give away to medical research, to helping the poors, to education, to whatever, while the more egoist person will have all the positive side-effects of the altruism of others, but keep all their money. The same goes with pollution: when someone choses to use more expensive but less polluting energy, he suffers from pollution as much as the egoist who chose the less expensive but more polluting energy. This is highly immoral.
Actually, people have more incentives to be altruistic in Capitalism than in Communism. If you donate money in a Capitalist country, you receive tax cuts. In Communism, well, your money are taken away regardless of what you do, so why should you try to produce more? The biggest problem is that the most productive people are those who are the most egotistic, who want to have more and more. In Communism, these guys will lose all motivation to produce.

Add to that that under capitalism, your power is directly dependant of the money you have (be it through the stock market, or through your ability to buy/not buy stuff), and you have a system that both rewards selfishness AND give more power to more selfish people .... isn't that a disastrous situation ?
So far, it hasn't been. It actually works pretty well. There will always be a "10% poorest people" in a Capitalist society. However, those 10% will live better and better. Somebody who receives unemplyment aid in a Western country lives far better than the great majority of those who still live in a Communist country. Why? Because, thanks to all those selfish people, the Western economies have grown and developped in the past 50 years, while the people living under Communism have had no incentive to increase their productivity.

No. Communism lowers the incentive to be egoist, and encourages people to be generous. And by making decisions collective, it allows all people to have the same consequences, which leads to a better situation for everyone.
:confused: Communism doesn't encourage people to be generous. It forces them to be so, by taking away what they've earned. What reward do people receive for being altruistic in a Communist society?

Well, if the worker thinks he's being paid unfairly, there is nothing stopping him from forming a union. He could also start his own business. Or maybe he could work for this "master" of his, save money, quit and get a higher education to get higher-paying jobs?

Forming a union? There are unions in most parts of the states, but have they changed anything for the common man? No.

For starting your own business, you need your own capital (money, land, resources, and labor), and a worker doesn't just pop up out of no where with that capital.

Oh, and how can you "save money" when you're practically starving and have to make a decision between buying food and medicine? True, you could save a few cents daily, but that would amount to nothing.

Well, obviously there should be public education, as there is in all capitalist societies today.

First, I don't any capitalist society with completly socialised ("free") education. You always have to buy the books, the paper, the transports to the school, and so on, which is hard for poor families. And it gets far worse when you enter university.

Then, in many if not all capitalist countries, the public education is, because of lack of money, in a bad shape, compared to private education.

But then, you forget all the side-effects of real life into education. When the kid can't eat sane food 3 meals a day, he's not able to learn as any other kid. When the kid can't sleep well because the house is too small so he must sleep with the baby crying during the night, it doesn't help either. Many kids don't have quiet room to make their homeworks, ...

You are also forgetting that without money from your parents, you need to work. Many students are forced to do a paid job in addition to their studies, which of course lower greatly their chances of succeeding. And many quit school because they need to earn money right now.

So just having "public education" is no way a solution. If you want everyone to be able to study as much as they can, with their own capacity and will to work being the only criterias, you NEED a socialised system covering much more than just education, but also food, transports, housing, health care, ... for students/kids.

Well, if they don't want to sell the luxury yacht they made for a certain price, they could raise prices, and if the luxury yachts were good enough, people might still buy them. Or perhaps they could build themselves a luxury yacht? Nobody is being forced to build a luxury yacht and then sell it for a certain price to certain people.

It is not the workers who built it who own it and sell it. But the ones owning the yatch factory.

Forming a union? There are unions in most parts of the states, but have they changed anything for the common man? No.

Well, I guess they haven't increased wages at all then. My apologies.

For starting your own business, you need your own capital (money, land, resources, and labor), and a worker doesn't just pop up out of no where with that capital.

Correct, but there's nothing stopping several workers from getting loans and agreeing to start a business together.

Oh, and how can you "save money" when you're practically starving and have to make a decision between buying food and medicine? True, you could save a few cents daily, but that would amount to nothing.

Don't ask me, why don't you ask some of the rags-to-"riches" users on this forum how they did it?

Well, if the worker thinks he's being paid unfairly, there is nothing stopping him from forming a union. He could also start his own business. Or maybe he could work for this "master" of his, save money, quit and get a higher education to get higher-paying jobs?

Forming a union ? All fine, he'll get fired. Starting his own business ? With which money ? How will he eat in the meanwhile ? Save money ? When the wages are barely enough to pay housing, food, health and schools of the kids ?

Don't be ridiculous. All what you say is not possible, for the huge majority of workers.

You can't have a pure capitalist society that has public education. America isn't pure capitalist - it's got a lot of social programs, such as education and welfare.

Frankly pure capitalism would be a nightmare for anyone not born wealthy, and pure socialism isn't great either. You need a MIX - a generally capitalist system with socialised programs to keep things from getting way too unfair.

The only question is how much socialism and how much capitalism is the right combination. Personally I think Sweden got it right - they've got a good economy as well as an amazing health care system and a well-educated population.

Forming a union? There are unions in most parts of the states, but have they changed anything for the common man? No.
Ahem *minimum wages* ahem *40 hour work week* ahem *paid vacation one month a year* ahem *free education* ahem. My throut is hurting because of so many "ahems". :) The reality is that the trade unions have achieved a lot for the common man.

For starting your own business, you need your own capital (money, land, resources, and labor), and a worker doesn't just pop up out of no where with that capital.

Oh, and how can you "save money" when you're practically starving and have to make a decision between buying food and medicine? True, you could save a few cents daily, but that would amount to nothing.
Are you talking about the people in the western countries? Because if you do, the "starving" part is totally out of place. Even with a modest wage, you can still save hundreads of dollars/euros a month.

Forming a union ? All fine, he'll get fired.
Big assumption. You are assuming that all company owners hate unions. Since as far as I know, unions still exist and have members, I doubt that.
Starting his own business ? With which money ? How will he eat in the meanwhile ? Save money ? When the wages are barely enough to pay housing, food, health and schools of the kids ?
You are now assuming that all workers are severely underpaid.
Don't be ridiculous. All what you say is not possible, for the huge majority of workers.
Maybe we should define the scope here:
Are we looking at the Western world, or all workers on the planet, or at one specific country, or what?

First, I don't any capitalist society with completly socialised ("free") education. You always have to buy the books, the paper, the transports to the school, and so on, which is hard for poor families. And it gets far worse when you enter university.

In America, everything you mentioned is paid for except the paper, but that is hardly expensive. Books are provided by the state (unless you mean binders?), transportation is provided (buses), and if the income of the student's family is low enough, they can apply for free lunch.

Then, in many if not all capitalist countries, the public education is, because of lack of money, in a bad shape, compared to private education.

Have you actually looked at any of the statistics? Our schools are getting more and more money but not doing any better. Money is not the problem.

But then, you forget all the side-effects of real life into education. When the kid can't eat sane food 3 meals a day, he's not able to learn as any other kid. When the kid can't sleep well because the house is too small so he must sleep with the baby crying during the night, it doesn't help either. Many kids don't have quiet room to make their homeworks, ...

First of all, there is free lunch for low-income households. So there's at least one full meal.

Second, why exactly is this poor family having more children if they can barely support the one they have?

Third, many schools here in USA have after-school buses -- the kid can stay after-school to do homework.

You are also forgetting that without money from your parents, you need to work. Many students are forced to do a paid job in addition to their studies, which of course lower greatly their chances of succeeding. And many quit school because they need to earn money right now.

This is similar to my poor community scenario. But this is not representative of the whole US economy. Poop.

So just having "public education" is no way a solution. If you want everyone to be able to study as much as they can, with their own capacity and will to work being the only criterias, you NEED a socialised system covering much more than just education, but also food, transports, housing, health care, ... for students/kids.

well that stinks.

You can't have a pure capitalist society that has public education. America isn't pure capitalist - it's got a lot of social programs, such as education and welfare.

Frankly pure capitalism would be a nightmare for anyone not born wealthy, and pure socialism isn't great either. You need a MIX - a generally capitalist system with socialised programs to keep things from getting way too unfair.

The only question is how much socialism and how much capitalism is the right combination. Personally I think Sweden got it right - they've got a good economy as well as an amazing health care system and a well-educated population.

BOOOOOO mixed-eco sucks!

in pure capitalism, more people would be wealthy. Let's also not forget that everything would be a lot cheaper making it easier for the proleteriat scum to buy things.

AFAIK, all the capitalist societies have free education (at least 12 years). After that, the best pupils receive scholarships for the university, so all the people have a relativelly equal start in life. What you do after that is entirely up to you.

That's false. I don't know any capitalist society with really free education, not even speaking of what's required to live while you study. For scholarships, only very few get them, and they are not enough to live.

Regarding altruism, how can you be penalized for that? If you want to help somebody, nobody stops you from doing so.

Capitalist system: A and B have the same money. A give to help research against cancer. B doesn't. A is then less rich than B, while A helped the society. If B ever has a cancer, he'll be able to pay the drug found thanks to A money. In this system, the "nice" persons suffer more than "evil" persons.

Socialised system: A and B are taken a bit of money. They each "lose" half of what A gave in the capitalist system. The same research is done. The effect for the society is the same. But in this system, it had costed the same for "nice" and "evil" persons.

Actually, people have more incentives to be altruistic in Capitalism than in Communism. If you donate money in a Capitalist country, you receive tax cuts.

LOL. The tax and tax cuts just go a bit TOWARDS communism. And remember that many people don't pay taxes because they are too poor for it... wonder why, they tend to give to charity too.

The biggest problem is that the most productive people are those who are the most egotistic, who want to have more and more.

This is completly false. The most egoisitic persons are the ones exploiting others, deceiving them, manipulating them, abusing from their generosity, or even the ones breaking the laws and stealing, cheating, and running organised crime.

The most productive people tend to spend their whole lives working hard for low wages.

In Communism, these guys will lose all motivation to produce.

They do have a motivation: working the good of the community. Unlike you may think, it's a motivation which can be even stronger than egoism. And which doesn't lead to cheating, lying, manipulating or stealing.

The money incentive is even counterproductive in an intelectual activities, which are the most important ones nowadays. A very interesting study was done on this topic: take 100 of students of a given level at random. Split them in two groups of 50 at random. To half, give a maths test and say "if you rank above <whatever> you'll have 100$ else, nothing". To the other half say "you'll have 50$ whatever your grade will be". The second half will have a higher average than the first half. Why ? Because the stress created by the money incentive lowers the brain ability.

However, those 10% will live better and better.

That's false. With the neoliberal (ie, more capitalist) policies started in the 70s or 80s, the poorest part of each country saw there live conditions lowered a lot.

Somebody who receives unemplyment aid in a Western country lives far better than the great majority of those who still live in a Communist country.

There is no such thing as a "communist country".

But if you speak of USSR, even as far as it was from communism, the people there were less poor in the 80s than the majority of Russian are nowadays. Oh sure, a minority of Russian now have luxurious cars.

Why? Because, thanks to all those selfish people, the Western economies have grown and developped in the past 50 years, while the people living under Communism have had no incentive to increase their productivity.

There is no such thing as a "communist country".

But if you speak of USSR, they managed to build themselves from a pre-capitalist, poor, illeterate, rural country into the world second power in 30 years, despite two world wars and a civil war. They even managed to beat the USA in the space race (except the moon landing). I wouldn't call that a failure, from an economical PoV.

But Stalin was a dictator, and what he did was very far from communism.

:confused: Communism doesn't encourage people to be generous. It forces them to be so, by taking away what they've earned. What reward do people receive for being altruistic in a Communist society?

Nothing is taken away. It's socialised, but it always end up by coming back to the people.

Well, for one thing, communism, by breaking the two loops "money => power => money" and "money => interests => more money" make the consequences of giving out money less than under capitalism.

But mostly, communism replaces a system into which the selfish people act selfishly, stockpile their wealths, and enjoy huge comfort, while generous people handle the help to the poor, the medical research, the efforts to avoid overpoluting, ... and suffer the consequences into a system into which people decide together, and then act together.

Of course, generous people will always spend more of their time/money helping out. But by lowering the amount of help required (by socialiasing a huge part of it), a communist system will in fact transfer wealth from egoistic persons to generous persons. Isn't that a very positive effect ?

Cubans just dont live such lazy lifestyles as americans. Also, Socialism sucks. I mean, like, socialism is against all econimic, civil, and political liberties. Trust me, nobody wants to live in a psychotic dictatorship

But if they were educated they would ask questions and they wouldn't accept anything they are told. Not quite what the ruling class want.

Oh of course, I completely forgot that we can't have people asking questions and not accepting everything they are told at face value.

Cubans just dont live such lazy lifestyles as americans. Also, Socialism sucks. I mean, like, socialism is against all econimic, civil, and political liberties. Trust me, nobody wants to live in a psychotic dictatorship

Not true. LOTS of people want to live in a psychotic dictatorship....so long as they get to be the psychotic dictator ;-)

Keep in mind: avg. life expect. of US=77.4 yrs, Cuba=77.0yrs. cost of healthcare(avg) US=$2,000 per yr. Cuba=$20. Long live the great workers revolution!!
Proletariats! YEAH!
Btw, Cuba is a poorer nation, hence lower health cost.

I believe in a democratic socialist nation. You should too. Now many people see 'Socialism' as being an off-shoot of communism. There right. But socialism has many radical changes. Here is a Capitalism vs. Socialism (Semi-Communism) comparison...

Capitalism

Capitalism means the complete separation of economy and state. Capitalism is the social system based upon private ownership of the means of production, which entails a completely uncontrolled and unregulated economy where all land is privately owned.

Capitalism has a main philosophical view. "Capitalism is implicitly based upon a world view which upholds that man’s mind is competent in dealing with reality, that it is morally good for each person to strive for his own happiness, and that the only proper social arrangement for men/women to live under is one in which the initiation of physical force is banished". This is the ideological basis upon which the United States was founded. The importance of recognizing the philosophy upon which capitalism rests upon lies in the fact that no social system can be properly understood or defended apart from its broader philosophical framework.
However, capitalist systems have shown that they do not improve society. They do, however, extend the rifts between people. Widening the gap between the rich and the poor. Social inequality.

Socialism

Socialism is the stage between Capitalism and Communism. It builds upon the previous system (Capitalism) by nationalizing the "means of production" (i.e. corporations, resources, banks, etc.), but not by making everyone equal. In other words, people will be paid wages based on several factors (social need, difficulty, amount of schooling required, etc.), so not everyone will make the same wage -- as is often a misinterpretation of Socialism.

Socialists believe in human evolution. We evolve in accordance to the system we live within. Capitalism has allowed us to evolve out of our feudalistic ways (for the most part), and slavery does not exist in our country (discrimination however....). But Capitalism, which is driven by the need to always increase profits, founders a "dog eat dog" mentality. This is not a sustainable system, either for humankind or for the environment. Capitalism is a disgusting social system. In the many years to come it will be shown as unsustainable. Even at the moment is bad for economic growth.
"Capitalism is the violent negation of democracy, for it is the interests of those who own capital that determine how we live: their jobs, products, services, manufactured culture, and propaganda shape our lives and our minds."
Under Socialism people will evolve to the point where they care about each other regardless of their location or race or whatever. If we are to survive as a species, we need to evolve. That's one of the many reasons I'm a Socialist.

A wise man once said... (Sadly I lost track of his name..)
“Only when the end of capitalism is on the table will ethics have a seat at the table.”

Capitalism means the complete separation of economy and state. Capitalism is the social system based upon private ownership of the means of production, which entails a completely uncontrolled and unregulated economy

nah. the state is a sort of executive committee for the big capitalists, enacting such regulations and controls as the capitalists desire. specifically, ones that efficiently transfer wealth to them from others, and ones that strengthen and maintain their hold on power.

@ Kilobugya

Oh my, I see these discutions always tend to get longer and longer... *sigh* I'll try not to quote, since this will make the post even longer, but I'll answer - hopefully - all the problems we're discussing.

1) Education. At least for the first 12 years, education is completelly free in all the Western countries. After that, only part of the people benefit from scholarships, but you can't have everybody attending a university. The proportion of people receiving scholarships may be adjusted if needed, but that's all that needs to be done.

2) Taxes. I'm not against them and I don't believe there's such a thing as a "pure" Capitalism in which people wouldn't have to give anything of what they produced. So I have nothing against your "socialized" system (which is actually Capitalism with taxes - as it has always existed).

3) Selfish people. Capitalism channels the people's selfish side into productive activities. There are laws against stealing and exploiting other people which are reasonably efective, thus 'forcing' the people to satisfy their selfish side by producing values. I still don't see how does Communism adress this aspect of the human character. As far as I can tell, it is completelly ignored. Also, being selfish means that you want to keep what you've earned, not that you want to take what somebody else has earned. There's a clear difference between selfishness and theft.

4) Productivity. You said that the most productive people spend their lives working for small wages. But you seem to confuse 'work' with 'productivity'. It doesn't matter how hard I work. What's important is how productive I am, not only for myself, but for the society as a whole. I pay taxes, so the richer I am, the more I pay. I'm filthy rich, so I can afford buying whatever I want, thus creating a demand for more goods and stimulating the economy.

5) Motivation. In this case I have to quote you.The money incentive is even counterproductive in an intelectual activities, which are the most important ones nowadays. A very interesting study was done on this topic: take 100 of students of a given level at random. Split them in two groups of 50 at random. To half, give a maths test and say "if you rank above <whatever> you'll have 100$ else, nothing". To the other half say "you'll have 50$ whatever your grade will be". The second half will have a higher average than the first half. Why ? Because the stress created by the money incentive lowers the brain ability.Take the same students and tell them the same thing one week before the test. I guarantee you that the first half will score better, because they'd have learned more for the test.

6) The legacy of Communism in Eastern Europe. It is true that people nowadays live worse than in the 80's, but this is preciselly because the Communist system collapsed and left all those countries in an economic crysis.

7) The transfer of money in a Communist society. Again I have to quote you.Of course, generous people will always spend more of their time/money helping out. But by lowering the amount of help required (by socialiasing a huge part of it), a communist system will in fact transfer wealth from egoistic persons to generous persons. Isn't that a very positive effect ?Actually, initially the wealth is taken from the rich (who may indeed be more egoistic on the average) and given to the poor, who most definitelly aren't more altruistic than the average. After the initial period, the wealth is taken from the productive memebers of the society and distributed among the less productive. Edit: just thought to make the conclusion more clear. The most positive effect is achieved if you don't take the wealth away from the productive people, because they are the only ones who can increase it, thus benefiting the entire society. Period. Communism, unfortunatelly, does exactly the opposite.

8) Motivation to produce. You say that the good of the community is a stronger motivation than egoism, but you give no proof to back your statement. In fact, whenever something is 'common', people tend not to take care of it very well, or not as well as if it were private property. The energy consumption in Romania used to be measured for entire blocks of flats, and then it was divided to the number of appartaments. When individual measurements were put into place, the ammount of energy consumed dropped significantly. In the first case, even if you forgot to turn off the lights, the price increse you had to pay was insignificant, because it was divided to all the appartaments in your block. In the second, the increse was substantial, so people started being more carefull.

9) Standard of living. It is a reality that the "selfishness" (selfish as in wanting to have more yourself, not wanting to take from others, which is theft, as I've already pointed out) chanelled into productive activities leads to economic growth. Communism discourages people from being "selfish", so part of the motivation to produce more dissapears. The desire to work for the good of the community may do some good, but that desire is allowed to exist in Capitalism, too. This means Capitalism is propelled both by people working for themselves and for the community, while Communism manages to motivate only the second category, thus being less efficient. Ultimatelly, what do we want? I think our primary purpose is to live better and better, not necessarilly to be all equal. In a Capitalist society, even the standard of living of the poorest members will continously improove as the economy grows. In Communism we are all brough to a common level, but after that not much will change. In the long run, Capitalist societies succed - paradoxically - to help the poor better than the Communist societies.

7) The transfer of money in a Communist society. Again I have to quote you.Actually, initially the wealth is taken from the rich (who may indeed be more egoistic on the average) and given to the poor, who most definitelly aren't more altruistic than the average.


I'm not for pure socialism either, but I would just say here that in my experience poor people do tend to be more altruistic than average. For example, the poorer looking houses would always tip me most at christmas on my paper route, and when I knocked on doors once collecting for charity the poorer areas of town donated more than the richer areas. I think it probably comes from not seeing money as important as others - if you can't define yourself by your wealth as you have little of it, then you are likely to be more free with it.

Just a little thing i've noticed.

I'm not for pure socialism either, but I would just say here that in my experience poor people do tend to be more altruistic than average. For example, the poorer looking houses would always tip me most at christmas on my paper route, and when I knocked on doors once collecting for charity the poorer areas of town donated more than the richer areas. I think it probably comes from not seeing money as important as others - if you can't define yourself by your wealth as you have little of it, then you are likely to be more free with it.

Just a little thing i've noticed.
Well, thinking about it, this may be true.

We should keep socialism just like the CDC keeps ebola, the plague, etc. and for the same reason.

There is no such thing as free healthcare. You can choose to pay for it through insurance or you can be forced to pay for it through taxes. Your failure to understand this is far more indicative of your ignorance than the validity of my arguments.
The poelpe who need health acre the most often are the ones who are for the same reasons they need health acre not able to have a job.
And their familyes would be broken financily if they were to support them

The poelpe who need health acre the most often are the ones who are for the same reasons they need health acre not able to have a job.
And their familyes would be broken financily if they were to support them

Then take out a loan.

Tory victory 2009 all the way.:)

Then take out a loan.

Tory victory 2009 all the way.:)

Banks don't give out loans to people they know wil not be able to give it back, or who have no colaterol

Banks don't give out loans to people they know wil not be able to give it back, or who have no colaterol

Ho hum, surely medical insurance couldbe subsidized upon a sliding scale.

Ho hum, surely medical insurance couldbe subsidized upon a sliding scale.
Didn't understand what you meant by that...
But okey, all I'm saying is that like banks don't just give out loan to people they know can't pay it back...
I think that america would be better of if it gave free health care to its people, its nok like they don't have the money

Didn't understand what you meant by that...
But okey, all I'm saying is that like banks don't just give out loan to people they know can't pay it back...
I think that america would be better of if it gave free health care to its people, its nok like they don't have the money

I remain unsure, the UK has a public heath service, and frankly, it is an unmitagted, beaurocratic and inefficient failure.

How could this simple-minded idealist claim to be a darwinist, 'darwinistan'? I am an *actual* Darwinist, and by abolishing the government, the ensuing state of nature would weed out the weak and unproductive. Once they're all dead, the only ones left would be the perfect society of productive people. There'd be no need for social welfare or any of that, because anyone nonproductive would quickly starve to death. I admit, communism would be nice, if it worked, but an unmotivated society is an unproductive one, which is why the ultimate society would be an anarchist one.
Perhaps Im not a darwinist, but rather I am from Darwin, Aust. in the nothern terr. Shouldn't jump to conclusions mate.

I am an *actual* Darwinist

no you aren't. you don't seem to have much of a grasp at all on the current state of knowledge regarding human evolution.

I remain unsure, the UK has a public heath service, and frankly, it is an unmitagted, beaurocratic and inefficient failure.
Yes the public health services of euope have fucked up the lest 20 years.
But I think the best solution would be to, well stop the burocracy and shit, and give more money, and make doctors do their jobs, a lot of them don't give shit even dough they have large pay checs;)

I know, I'm in norway now, had some thing, and I waited 6 months from the time I went to my docotr, til they admited me to hospital to take the tests...
BUt anyways, what about the goverment paying privat sector for how many pople they have helped, and they do it for free but then get paied by the goverment, now thats a good idea

Socialism cannot work without use of force. IMO, police-state dictatorship is unacceptable. Voluntary socialism will not work because, again IMO, people are nasty, greedy, selfish bastards. What's the solution? Simple. There isn't one.

Socialism cannot work without use of force. IMO, police-state dictatorship is unacceptable. Voluntary socialism will not work because, again IMO, people are nasty, greedy, selfish bastards. What's the solution? Simple. There isn't one.

Well better to have police state that is fair that having a unfair police state.
IN other word there are only police states, but what they do is what they are.
BUt maybe poepl need to colonize mars or something, earth sucks couse its crowded

First, I don't any capitalist society with completly socialised ("free") education. You always have to buy the books, the paper, the transports to the school, and so on, which is hard for poor families. And it gets far worse when you enter university.

Then, in many if not all capitalist countries, the public education is, because of lack of money, in a bad shape, compared to private education.

But then, you forget all the side-effects of real life into education. When the kid can't eat sane food 3 meals a day, he's not able to learn as any other kid. When the kid can't sleep well because the house is too small so he must sleep with the baby crying during the night, it doesn't help either. Many kids don't have quiet room to make their homeworks, ...

You are also forgetting that without money from your parents, you need to work. Many students are forced to do a paid job in addition to their studies, which of course lower greatly their chances of succeeding. And many quit school because they need to earn money right now.

So just having "public education" is no way a solution. If you want everyone to be able to study as much as they can, with their own capacity and will to work being the only criterias, you NEED a socialised system covering much more than just education, but also food, transports, housing, health care, ... for students/kids.

I see. So you want 80% of the nation to destroy their way of life so 10% can 'have a bigger house'.

There are programs for free transport. There are programs for housing. There are programs for food, but why should there be programs for 'bigger houses', 'quieter rooms' at the expense of the vast majority of the population? It's a load of crap.

In the United States, 12% of the US (less, really) suffer from the circumstances you describe. It doesn't make a lick of sense to kill the productivity of the rest of the nation so that 12% can get a marginally better education and be forced into lower paying jobs anyway due to any nation's requirement for manual/unskilled labor.

Yes, they were forced, because it was either that or starving to death. There is absolutely no difference between pointing a gun to somone and saying "do that or I kill" and saying to somone "do that or you'll starve".

Freedom doesn't exist in capitalism, because you first need to eat, drink, sleep in warmth, and so on. So the only freedom workers have is either to die, or to accept working at the price decided by the buisness owner alone, in conditions decided by him alone.

Sure, there can be social help, there can be working codes, minimal wages, and so on. But all that are steps away from capitalism, and in capitalist countries, are far from being enough to change the basic situation. Workers are "wage slaves", who are forced to work and not being paid according to the wealth they really produced, because else, they starve (or die from the cold, or from a disease, or whatever).

I'm really sorry to have to say this, but you are a naive fool.

Is yacht making the only profession they can take? No! They can go live in a state park and forage for berries and hunt rabbits if they want, they can go take some other job.

OF COURSE PEOPLE HAVE TO WORK FOR FOOD!

What about in socialism? Maybe the worker doesn't have to work for food or health, but the people who make the food and provide the healthcare do! The government has to tell those farmers "Give food to these people or we will deny you healthcare", and to the doctor they say "perform these services or we will starve you."

Are they free? NO! They are owned by the government. The bureaucracy of socialism makes it impossible for people to negotiate true social contracts outside the government. Do you have freedom of property? No. The government controls what you get. As Locke says, the right to property is paramount. Without freedom of property, you have no guarantee to any other rights. Assuming you are free without ownership is wishful thinking at best. The government can take away your livelihood if you don't keep in line with the program (ie, speak, assemble, worship out of line), you starve or succumb to disease.

So in that respect, Capitalism is more free, because it allows you to buy and sell from who you want to rather than being forced to rely 100% on the government.

From what you're saying right now, you show a complete disregard for common sense. Look, go read some nice natural law philosophy and then talk to me.

Same to you.

Wow, you'd just LOVE the feudal system wouldn't you? Of course, you'd probably assume you'd be born into an elite family so everything would be hunky dory. Who cares about those filthy serfs? Sure, some may be naturally far more talented, intelligent and hard working than yourself, but to take away a small portion of your fortune to educate them and give them a decent chance to prove themselves would be pure evil wouldn't it?

If you cannot make the distinction between capitalism and feudalism, then you are in abseloutely no position to discuss matters of government and economy.

I would dare say China is hardly a system "for the people". Chine may be ruled by "The Communist party" but only fools think that China is a communist country
Yes, you get many of these "rights" like healthcare, housing etc.. but your economies are scarely able to sustain them. Thats because all the countries that have ever attempted extreme levels of socialism were unable to feed their people anyway. Becoming socialist however, helps these countries greatly. If a rich country like the US became socialist, they wouldn't all of a sudden be "unable to sustain themselves".

People work less and get the same then people who work more... this is the ulimate problem with socialism.. . Except everyone works the same amount. So its more like "people who have the mental capacity for higher education don't get paid more."

Except everyone works the same amount.
How are you planning to manage that? Are you going to force them?

I see. So you want 80% of the nation to destroy their way of life so 10% can 'have a bigger house'. I'd be intrested to see where you learned to make up statistics like that.

There are programs for housing.
That put people
a) in ghettos
b) in debt

There are programs for food
Noone unwillingly starves to death in the North Western hemisphere, whoever said they did is sorely mistaken. However in less wealthy parts of the world, where people do starve to death, there are no "programs for food" and thus a socialist system should be adopted so the government can re-distribute wealth to see to the population's most basic needs.


It doesn't make a lick of sense to kill the productivity of the rest of the nation so that 12% can get a marginally better education and . Marginally?

be forced into lower paying jobs anyway What?

I'm really sorry to have to say this, but you are a naive fool.Let's not go calling people names

Is yacht making the only profession they can take? No! They can go live in a state park and forage for berries and hunt rabbits if they want, they can go take some other job. Good job forming cohesive thoughts

Are they free? NO! They are owned by the government. I would argue that people living in a socialist society are no less free than people living in the US today. Infact, according to your interpretation of reality, people in a socialist country are more free because they can be sustained without working, whereas in a capitalist country, you are forced to work by the fact that you need to eat to live.

The bureaucracy of socialism makes it impossible for people to negotiate true social contracts outside the government. There are things you jsut can't do in every country for that country to function properly to be able to accomadate ins citizens. For instance, in a capitalist country you can't just go around breaking contracts, because that would stop the country from functioning properly.
The government can take away your livelihood if you don't keep in line with the program (ie, speak, assemble, worship out of line), you starve or succumb to disease. As opposed to corporations taking away your livlihood if you refise to keep in line with their program

So in that respect, Capitalism is more free, because it allows you to buy and sell from who you want to rather than being forced to rely 100% on the government. And yet less free because you are confined by the abilities instilled in you at birth over hich you have no control

From what you're saying right now, you show a complete disregard for common sense. I disagree. Infact I would go so far as to say that you show a complete disreard for human decency.
Look, go read some nice natural law philosophy
Ya, thats relevant



If you cannot make the distinction between capitalism and feudalism, then you are in abseloutely no position to discuss matters of government and economy. Capitalism is industrial feudalism, not medival feudalsim. Theres a pretty obvious distinction

How are you planning to manage that? Are you going to force them?
Well yes, everyone is forced to work (in some respects) for their livelihood in every society. Correct me if I'm wrong

There is too much incentive to earn money, whatever the consequences on others may be, definitely. That's one of most dramatic problems actually.

Yet somehow, capitalism is a raging success, with higher standards of living, more progress, and stronger economies, every attempt at communism has failed spectacularly, and socialist countries remain very second-string, at best. France is a weak nation, very economically second-tier to the U.S and other capitalist countries, and ironically its real motivation and source of power on the international table is business deals with Russia, China, Iran, and [formerly] Iraq. Cuba is an authoritarian dictatorship with a populace that has any attempt at private enterprise viciously stomped on, and their money stolen by the socialist state, leaving them as poverty-stricken, "equally" poor and miserable masses. Etc., etc., etc.

Communists never speak of "free education" except in a metamorphic way, we speak of "socialised education system" or "socialised health system".

Ah, the wonders of semantic propoganda...if we do not speak of it, it is not so....

What you, capitalist, don't understand is that it ALSO applies to your luxury yatch or private mannor. A luxury yatch requires 96 years of human work to be built. Which means that when a rich CEO buys a luxury yatch, he's buying the result of TWO LIFELONG HARD LABOUR. This is what capitalism is about. A few minority buying themselves as a hobby luxury that takes several other people a full life to build.

And your point is? Two people (hypothetically, obviously) willingly and voluntarily work for pay to produce something someone else wants and can pay them for. No one is being forced to do anything, and value goes both ways. The workers entered freely and without coercion, of their own desire, into a contract and were fairly compensated. In this impossible-in-RL hypothetical situation, of course. In reality, hundreds of workers build it, and each is compensated for the small part of the labor that they performed, and it only takes them a month or so. But whatever.

The wealth you can "earn" on the stock market

Which is providing companies with wealth, so that they can create more wealth, a small part of which is than repaid to you for your original aid, with this process systematized....

renting a flat

I assume you mean renting out a flat, in which case you originally bought it in the first place with your own money that you worked for. You paid value for it. You own it. The reason you bought it was to repay and then some your original investment by giving people what they need/want (that shelter) in exchange for their monetary value.

or making others to work in your land

Umm...capitalists don't "make" others work on their land. That's called slavery, doesn't happen anymore, and is in fact a profoundly anti-capitalist concept. We pay people to work land, (or some equivalent, since "working land" is also something that doesn't happen much anymore) and they agree to that exchange of their own free will.

No, they use workers to build the school, and the refuse to let the kids of those workers to enter these schools, despite that it was their own parents who built them.

Their parents were paid for laying x number of bricks and putting in y number of pipes and wires - they did 1/z of the labor, and they got paid accordingly, in an exchange they entered into of their initiative and volition. But the point is, they were paid. They did a [probably small] fraction of the basic, generic labor required to contruct a building and were subsequently compensated. Assuming (as you seem to) that it was some expensive private school, why should their kids be able to go? Communists use that little turn of phrase, (they can't buy the shoes in the store they work at, etc. etc.) but have nothing to back it up. My question is, so what?

Value, wealth, are created by hard work of the working class.

No, the working class perform basic labor, which is turned into value by the people who organize and use that labor. It isn't even close to all value, either; the greater part of value in fact comes from skilled and knowledge workers. A few laborers build the jet engine, but who designed it? Who conceptualized it? Who could it not have been made without?

Not only that, but even the value created by capitalists directly from a worker's labor is only the first threshold; most value is then subsequently created from that value, by using the value directly created from labor to make more, more labor-removed value.

Labor is sunlight, but true complexity and life are created by the complex, diverse, multilayered system of plants and animals. Monosubstance organic sludge produces little life and less complexity; similarly, energy that remains pure light and is never otherwise converted either radiates into the vacuum and is effectively lost to entropy, or bounces around the universe endlessly and pointlessly, losing energy bit by bit, with the entirety of existence passing by in literally subjective zero seconds. No time or experience. For a photon, life lasts an eternity, yet never started or happened at all.

The second point you do not understand is that no one chose to be sick. No one chose to have health problems. The same way no peasant chose to have a hurricane or lack of rain destroy their crop. And so on. This is why civilised socities create SOLIDARITY among its citizens, and protect the unlucky, as much as possible, from the bad consequences of their unluck. This is the basis of civilization. Don't let the ones who have trouble starve, but help them. And be sure that if you go into troubles because you had the bad luck of catching a disease or of seeing your house flooded, the society will be there to help you.

Yet you're doing that using value you steal from the people who produce and own it at the point of a directly implied gun, and they get nothing back since they won't need the nanny state to act as a crutch anyway: they have that forgotten virtue called independence.

I'd be intrested to see where you learned to make up statistics like that.

Sorry, I'm off by 2%. 12% of the US is under the poverty line, and 80% of the population (above the income levels of the lower class) would be paying the bulk of the tax money for the reform.

That put people
a) in ghettos
b) in debt

a) Where else is the government going to put them? Rather house the poor in National Parks or military bases? Anywhere else, the government would have to buy a lot of land, putting them in even more debt
b) If you need free housing you're likely already in debt. Not something the govt can magically wish away.


Noone unwillingly starves to death in the North Western hemisphere, whoever said they did is sorely mistaken. However in less wealthy parts of the world, where people do starve to death, there are no "programs for food" and thus a socialist system should be adopted so the government can re-distribute wealth to see to the population's most basic needs.


That's true. However, that's really a short term solution for those countries. If they really want to improve standards of living for the long term, they have to allow some degree of free market, not total socialism.

Marginally?


Yes, marginally. Education isn't just the amount of services and money you throw into it. It has a lot to do with the parents, the quality of the teachers, etc.


What?


ANY society requires a lower class in some form. Its like you tell a kid... Not everyone can be an astronaut. Similarly, there are some kids who are going to get a good education and still have to work in unskilled labor, because unskilled labor is necessary and theres only a finite need for skilled labor.


Good job forming cohesive thoughts


Do I get a cookie?


I would argue that people living in a socialist society are no less free than people living in the US today. Infact, according to your interpretation of reality, people in a socialist country are more free because they can be sustained without working, whereas in a capitalist country, you are forced to work by the fact that you need to eat to live.


Depends on how you define people. The people who sustain other people (farmers, doctors, teachers) can't be sustained without working. The government forces them to work in what they do, because if they don't, nobody else can be sustained.


There are things you jsut can't do in every country for that country to function properly to be able to accomadate ins citizens. For instance, in a capitalist country you can't just go around breaking contracts, because that would stop the country from functioning properly.

Yes, but in capitalism you can choose those contracts yourself. And if you choose them yourself, you're less likely to have to break them.


As opposed to corporations taking away your livlihood if you refise to keep in line with their program


There are thousands of corporations and there are even more small businesses. Lose one job, if your line of work is needed, you'll get another. If your line of work isn't needed, better learn to do something else.


And yet less free because you are confined by the abilities instilled in you at birth over hich you have no control


I fail to see that as a 'disadvantage' as a system of government. If you're square, you shouldn't expect to fit into the round hole.


I disagree. Infact I would go so far as to say that you show a complete disreard for human decency.


The problem is, human decency doesn't always equate with common sense. And in the end, common sense will generally win. My philosphy is to be decent until it contradicts common sense/natural law. Human decency is to give up everything you have for others. Common sense is to do what you can for yourself and your family/friends first, and then worry about the other people. They're not mutually exclusive but they aren't always compatible.


Ya, thats relevant


Natural law is the basis for capitalism, human rights, and other aspects of politics. Since capitalism and human rights are relevant to this discussion...


Capitalism is industrial feudalism, not medival feudalsim. Theres a pretty obvious distinction

Last time I checked, the government still has to buy land.

Last time I checked, you aren't legally bound to service with anyone (even under the idea of 'wage slavery'. Unless you work in a monopoly corporation, you can get a job somewhere else.)

Yes, they were forced, because it was either that or starving to death. There is absolutely no difference between pointing a gun to somone and saying "do that or I kill" and saying to somone "do that or you'll starve".

You're right.

Except not one employer has ever said to an employee, "do that or you'll starve."

Slave owners to slaves? Yes.

Because in the case of slave owners, they had total and complete control over whether the slave eats.

Unless you can really prove to me that those fictional yacht builders had NO other employment opportunities whatsoever, that their skills were completely unusable in a free market, that if they tried to get another job ANYWHERE doing ANYTHING else they would be totally unable to do so... that control does not exist.

It was thus either, "do that or look for employment elsewhere." That's not the same and if you were intellectually honest you'd see that.

But since you seem to be following the trend of ignoring whatever arguments contradict your own, I doubt you will.


Freedom doesn't exist in capitalism, because you first need to eat, drink, sleep in warmth, and so on. So the only freedom workers have is either to die, or to accept working at the price decided by the buisness owner alone, in conditions decided by him alone.

Wow! You've just proved that *freedom doesn't exist in any system.*

Everyone no matter what system needs to eat, drink, sleep in warmth etc. So hey guess what, according to you there is no freedom. Cynical, but hardly a condemmation of capitalism... unless you contend that in communism, no one needs to eat or drink. (Hey, it worked for Mao right?)


Sure, there can be social help, there can be working codes, minimal wages, and so on. But all that are steps away from capitalism, and in capitalist countries, are far from being enough to change the basic situation. Workers are "wage slaves", who are forced to work and not being paid according to the wealth they really produced, because else, they starve (or die from the cold, or from a disease, or whatever).

...or get another job somewhere else....

Christ, you people really have one-track minds. "OMG IM BEING OPPRESSED, I HAVE TO WORK FOR A LIVING11!11omg!1!!" Makes it really hard to take you seriously.

Christ, you people really have one-track minds. "OMG IM BEING OPPRESSED, I HAVE TO WORK FOR A LIVING11!11omg!1!!" Makes it really hard to take you seriously.

Damn right. What exactly is so wondrous and fundamentally necessary about freedom from having any responsibility of any kind or any necessity to do shit for yourself?

Damn right. What exactly is so wondrous and fundamentally necessary about freedom from having any responsibility of any kind or any necessity to do shit for yourself?

Well, a sincere admiration of the lives of sea anenomes, perhaps? They don't seem to have to do much in order to survive. It's possible they get a free lunch!

...though, energetically speaking, that can't be true even for sea anemones. In biology NO ONE gets a free lunch.

I don't see why homo sapiens should be an exception.

If anything, we have more to do, since we're the only sapient species, and thus the only ones capable of doing many, many things, which definitely won't get done in the unmotivated, entropic, caters-to-the-stupid-and-weak steady-state existence of communism.

Socialism cannot work without use of force. IMO, police-state dictatorship is unacceptable. Voluntary socialism will not work because, again IMO, people are nasty, greedy, selfish bastards. What's the solution? Simple. There isn't one.

How about a system where you go to for eight hours a day, you get your card stamped (or more technologically, your card swipped) and receive benefits equal to the intensity/skill of your work times the length that you worked for. The government than feeds/houses/clothes/entertains you based on the value of your work. If you don't work, you don't get a "work cedit" the government won't feed you, and eventually will start re-posesing your property. (obviously you could have sick days and such, and you'd get warnings to go to work before you starved to death) So everyone works, as well as getting everything they need. The benefits of this system are
a) (greater)equality b) you don't need to have been working for a (long) time before you can meet your own needs.

Naturally there would have to be a rather large, rigorous and honest corps of "quality and time moniters" (or a better name) who would judge the quality and intensity of work of every person. This would be a rather difficult job as these are somewhat difficult qualities to judge. Electronic surveilance is a possibility if it were considered ethical by the country in which this system were installed.

Basically, the credit system will supplant regular money. In doing this though, you won't make more or less money based on your area of work. So yes, there would be people wealthier than others (hopefully not too much so). The main benefits of this system as I see it are:
a) that people aren't rewarded based on their ability to do things that others can't, they are rewarded based on their ability to do what they can do well and productivly. Thus I beleive it would increase the total production of the country, as people are motivated to do what they can with vigor moreso than modern society
b) I would hope that this would minimize people who do not contribute very much to society (I'm not talking about beaureaucrats/managers/organizers, but owners/investors/realestateagents who (as I see it) basically just live off the work of other (not that I have a problem with the people who fill those roles in modern society, I just don't think its the best way to do things.

So idealy everyone will work as hard as they can at what they can and then turn over their entire produce to the state to be re-distributed.

This system has flaws. It makes the assumption that all types of work are of equal value to the country, and thus are rewarded equally. Two, it would be hard to install in a country, and the first few years would undoubtedly be inefficient and wasteful. Three, its sucsess depends largely on the integrity and the dependibility of the "quality and time moniters". If they are not looking entirly at what is best for the system people will undobtedly bribe the moniters to make it look as if they've been working harder and longer than they have.

However, since there is no money, people could only use their own possessions to bribe the cultural managers I propose that there would be a limit on how much material wealth a person could acquire.

By now you're probably asking: If there's all this productivity and only limited posessions to a person, what becomes of all the rest of the wealth produced? The answer is 1) Public works, like parks, libraries etc. that everyone can enjoy 2) Improving public sysytems like education and health care that my country (Canada) has so much trouble maintaining.

Obviously, education would count as work, so those fit to be doctors/computper designers/artists/etc would still be working and being fed while they're in medical school/tech school/art school/etc. They would simply study instead of farming or producing goods etc.

So ya, theres a solution to socialism

PS I can't figure out an incentive to make people work hard after they've maxed out their personal posessions. Mabye you NSers could help me refine this theory

Well, we could get rid of the personal possession maximum, make different work have different values, and give people more personal control over themselves in relation to the system....wait, that would be capitalism, wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

See, I told you there was no solution. Neither system works. Total collapse of society is inevitable.