NationStates Jolt Archive

Here on the forum I always hear about how "great" socialism is susspose to be, and yet, I never understood why. Here is my basic understanding about socialism. The government takes about half, or all of your money and redistribute it amongs the populace. (Eh maybe I'm thinking about communism). Anyways, there's no rich, no poor, everyone is in the middle. Now that may look good on paper, but when you put it into pratice. Because everyone is the "same" then there's no drive to be better, there's no drive to make better products, no competition. There's no reason to get rich, because the government will keep you in the middle. So why even bother trying to do anything? So, it seems to me if all of this is true, than the economy of a socialist country is going to be crap. Anything that you buy is going to be crap, and we'll all be miserable.

So, what is so great about socialism?

Here on the forum I always hear about how "great" socialism is susspose to be
That's because people with an interest in politics, particularly politics that differ greatly from the status quo gravitate toward this forum.

Personally, my problem with socialism is the authoritarianism - I don't trust anyone to have that much economic control.

It enlarges your penis.

It lets you stick your head in the ground like an ostrich and ignore the real world. :) Seriously though, in theory, its utopian ideals are great, but not my kind of thing.

PS: Kervoskia, it would be "Thy Lord". ;)

Why is everyone having a reasonable amount of money, without being the extremes of rich and poor, making everyone the "same"? Is money the only thing that gives us any worth or makes us who we are?
Why should money be the only "drive to be better" or "drive to make better products"?
Who says there is "no competition"?
Why is money seen as the only reason to "do anything"?

You pressume a hell of a lot of (false) things in your criticism of socialism.

Why is everyone having a reasonable amount of money, without being the extremes of rich and poor, making everyone the "same"? Is money the only thing that gives us any worth or makes us who we are?
Why should money be the only "drive to be better" or "drive to make better products"?
Who says there is "no competition"?
Why is money seen as the only reason to "do anything"?

You pressume a hell of a lot of (false) things in your criticism of socialism.

Because money is what make the world go round? Why do you think Bill Gates made Microsoft, or why do you think Mr. Ford started the assembly line for his Ford country? Hell why do you think when Boeing made the 747, Airbus made the A380? To make more money than the competiton!

Because money is what make the world go round? Why do you think Bill Gates made Microsoft, or why do you think Mr. Ford started the assembly line for his Ford country? Hell why do you think when Boeing made the 747, Airbus made the A380? To make more money than the competiton!
wow, you're stuck inside the capitalism box for sure.

think outside the box, man

wow, you're stuck inside the capitalism box for sure.

think outside the box, man

There's no money outside the box, dirty hippie liberal socialist communist!

There's no money outside the box, dirty hippie liberal socialist communist!

He may also be French/a 'fag'

He may also be French/a 'fag'
Hey, this fag over here is as capitalist as can be. ;)

Because money is what make the world go round? Why do you think Bill Gates made Microsoft, or why do you think Mr. Ford started the assembly line for his Ford country? Hell why do you think when Boeing made the 747, Airbus made the A380? To make more money than the competiton!
In a capitalist society, yes. A capitalist society revolves around those ideas, and that basis. So, obviously, money is what keeps the capitalist society going.

Except we're talking about a socialist society. Which means the basis of everything wouldn't be money.

Plus, that doesn't always work. When money is the main issue, profit is the main thing in people's minds and that can outweigh want for quality, true betterment, helping mankind etc. If you can seize control/power or find a situation where you won't lose it's hold, or can give an appearance of quality or betterment etc, then you don't actually need to improve or produce things of high quality.

I think capitalism isn't that bad. When I hate it is when corporations become this huge entities like Wal-Mart or Enron. They begin to ruin other smaller companies and mom and pop stores. It's when they turn into monopolies is when it needs to stop. The government needs to have tigher restrictions on the private sector and nationalize several key industries. What I like about Socialism is that and the social liberties it gives. They create welfare-states and social safety nets. Yes, there can be high taxes but when you have alot of your healthcare and such covered who needs alot of money?

A country needs a healthy balance of democracy, socialism, and moderated capitalism.

Democracy goes without saying. Socialism provides all the above, and moderated capitalism helps the economy.

The basic tenet of socialism, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," has great appeal. It is the application of this tenet, in particular the definition of "need," that can be less than ideal in the real world.

The basic tenet of socialism, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," has great appeal. It is the application of this tenet, in particular the definition of "need," that can be less than ideal in the real world.
I've always thought that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" could be used to describe slavery - people are worked as much as they can and given only what they need to live.

Here is my basic understanding about socialism. The government takes about half, or all of your money and redistribute it amongs the populace. (Eh maybe I'm thinking about communism). Anyways, there's no rich, no poor, everyone is in the middle.
That's social liberalism. In socialism you don't have an income except what the government gives you (based on your "needs", not what you do). The reward for working is to not be shot, or whatever the punishment for selfishness is.

I've always thought that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" could be used to describe slavery - people are worked as much as they can and given only what they need to live.
For one thing, to have a slave, you need there to be an owner of the slave and if this is the case "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" obviously isn't being followed.
Capitalistic ideas support slavery far more.

It also depends on how you define "need".

Also, basic human rights are fundamental in my mind and go without saying, before support of any systems such as socialism, meaning slavery obviously doesn't enter the situation. Just generally - while this phrase may be something central - socialists work off a lot more than that.

That's social liberalism. In socialism you don't have an income except what the government gives you (based on your "needs", not what you do). The reward for working is to not be shot, or whatever the punishment for selfishness is.
Yeah... That's a great understanding of socialism there.

That's social liberalism. In socialism you don't have an income except what the government gives you (based on your "needs", not what you do). The reward for working is to not be shot, or whatever the punishment for selfishness is.

Wow. Just...


Just wow...

That's social liberalism. In socialism you don't have an income except what the government gives you (based on your "needs", not what you do). The reward for working is to not be shot, or whatever the punishment for selfishness is.

Are people really that ignorant?

For one thing, to have a slave, you need there to be an owner of the slave and if this is the case "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" obviously isn't being followed.
"The people" (the government really) is the owner.

Capitalistic ideas support slavery far more.
Slaves can't earn or spend money. That's pretty un-capitalist.

It also depends on how you define "need".
Differently to "want"?

Also, basic human rights are fundamental in my mind and go without saying, before support of any systems such as socialism, meaning slavery obviously doesn't enter the situation. Just generally - while this phrase may be something central - socialists work off a lot more than that.
Socialists have good intentions, I know that. I just don't think that giving such power to people who claim to represent "the people" is such a clever idea. I also don't like the idea of people defining themselves as "workers". Work is not who you are, it's a means to an end.

I just hope that the people who are against Socialism know it's not like Communism.

I don't trust anyone to have that much economic control.
Then stop trusting big business.

Wal-Mart, Enron, and the oil companies are prime examples of when capitalism goes bad.

It lets you stick your head in the ground like an ostrich and ignore the real world. :) Seriously though, in theory, its utopian ideals are great, but not my kind of thing.
This coming from a minarchist?

Empirical evidence shows that the mixed economy is the best model humanity has ever come up with. Pure socialism and pure capitalism both lead to undesirable conditions. With mixed economies, the people of the world have never had it better.

Personally, my problem with socialism is the authoritarianism - I don't trust anyone to have that much economic control.

In true socialism, no one has "that much economic control". In true socialism, it's the people who has "economic control", and not an authoritarian governement (like it was in USSR) nor a few wealthy people (like it is in capitalism).

This coming from a minarchist?

Empirical evidence shows that the mixed economy is the best model humanity has ever come up with. Pure socialism and pure capitalism both lead to undesirable conditions. With mixed economies, the people of the world have never had it better.
If you are basing your analysis on that deluded piece of work by Herr Fukuyama, then it is only natural you would believe so.

Then stop trusting big business.
I never do. But I'd rather have several competing businesses than one omnipotent government.

In true socialism, no one has "that much economic control". In true socialism, it's the people who has "economic control", and not an authoritarian governement (like it was in USSR) nor a few wealthy people (like it is in capitalism).

In "true <insert ideology here>" things are peachy, but in reality, someone has to represent "the people" in managing things, and it's gonna be whoever is the most power-hungry, not whoever's the most competent. So I say, limit their power.

Socialists have good intentions, I know that. I just don't think that giving such power to people who claim to represent "the people" is such a clever idea.
Oh, I can definitly understand that - I'm generally very cynical of politicians, governments, people in power... However, that doesn't stop me believing that socialism is the fairest system, or the "best" system, or the "right" system, or perhaps holding some hope that there could be people out there suitable to implement it properly.
I also don't like the idea of people defining themselves as "workers". Work is not who you are, it's a means to an end.
That's something I've never really gotten myself.
I just typed out various thoughts, but they all contradicted, came to no conclusion and made no sense. So I'll just agree with you that I don't really like the idea and leave it up to others to explain.

Because money is what make the world go round? Why do you think Bill Gates made Microsoft

If only that didn't happen, computer industry would be much, much better nowadays. Microsoft is a plague that downgraded computer science by such an incredible amount... thanks to them, most computer users are struck with highly suboptimal CPUs that still boot in 8-bits mode, they are plagued by viruses and worms, spywares and backdoors, forced to change their computers every couple of years, and using an operating system with the most stupid design ever implemented, and so on, and so on.

Hell why do you think when Boeing made the 747, Airbus made the A380? To make more money than the competiton!

Not really. The main purpose of the A380 was not money (sure, it's a significant secondary goal), but fame. Boeing vs Airbus is a USA-EU fame war, more than a real economical war. Both receive direct support from their respective governements, be it in founds, technology, or diplomatic support.

In true socialism, no one has "that much economic control". In true socialism, it's the people who has "economic control", and not an authoritarian governement (like it was in USSR) nor a few wealthy people (like it is in capitalism).
I agree with this completely but I can see the potential problem in implementing socialism and making the transition and change.

That's social liberalism. In socialism you don't have an income except what the government gives you (based on your "needs", not what you do). The reward for working is to not be shot, or whatever the punishment for selfishness is.

Not really. Socialism can be defined in two ways: the first definition being "social ownership of means of production", the second one "the transition period between capitalism and communism". The second one is trickier to use, because you can easily claim that "it's a transition period" for many different societies.

But for the first definition, socialism doesn't mean any governement. In a socialist society, means of production are owned "socially", which means either by the workers themselves (cooperatives), or by the community (city, region, state, if and ONLY IF, those are governed in a democratic way). Under this defintion, USSR was not really socialist, because the governement who owned the corporations was not democratic, and therefore was not the representative of "community". That's why many socialists/communists of today speak of "state capitalism" for USSR.

One thing I forgot to mention is that the competitive nature of private enterprise helps innovation and improvement of efficiency (assuming there are no monopolies).

In "true <insert ideology here>" things are peachy, but in reality, someone has to represent "the people" in managing things, and it's gonna be whoever is the most power-hungry, not whoever's the most competent. So I say, limit their power.

That's why many socialists/communists preach (like me) for a more democratic governement, and against too much centralisation.

There are many ways for that: decentralisation (cities, ... not the central governement controlling), participative democracy (recall/direct referendum, participative budgets, ...), mixed control (decisions in "corporations" taken by a council, in which the "governement", but also workers unions and users associations are represented), cooperatives ("corporations" in which one worker = one voice), ...

Don't think socialism means one big governement controlling everything. If you look at what the communist party did in France, for example when it created the "Social Security" in 1944, it was created totally outside the control of the governement (it was professional elections, in which workers voted directly for their representative inside the "social security" system). Sure, the right wing quickly broke this system... too progressive for them :/

There's no money outside the box, dirty hippie liberal socialist communist!

What's "money" ? A debt certificate from a commonly trusted authority (called "bank", and usually backed by the state). That's not linked to capitalism at all. And societies without "money" are perfectly possible, too.

Here on the forum I always hear about how "great" socialism is susspose to be, and yet, I never understood why. Here is my basic understanding about socialism. The government takes about half, or all of your money and redistribute it amongs the populace. (Eh maybe I'm thinking about communism). Anyways, there's no rich, no poor, everyone is in the middle. Now that may look good on paper, but when you put it into pratice. Because everyone is the "same" then there's no drive to be better, there's no drive to make better products, no competition. There's no reason to get rich, because the government will keep you in the middle. So why even bother trying to do anything? So, it seems to me if all of this is true, than the economy of a socialist country is going to be crap. Anything that you buy is going to be crap, and we'll all be miserable.

So, what is so great about socialism?

First, that's not what socialism is. Socialism is, as I explained in another post, social ownership of means of production. It means that people decide of the economy, and not stock holder. It's democracy applied to economy, either on a local level (by workers themselves inside cooperatives, or at a local geographical level) or on a global level.

Strong taxes, welfare, ... are not really "socialist" measures, but more social-democrats measures (attempt to make capitalism more human by removing its more horrible faults). What's true is that many (most) of socialists are motivated by a human, ethical desire, which drive them to not let anyone starve or lack access to healthcare. So, yes, socialism is very often associated with granting to anyone the basic needs, but it's not directly linked with socialism under the first definition ("social ownership of means of production"). It comes from the second definition of socialism ("transition between capitalism and communism").

For the competition part, you've to remember that if competition can have some positive effects, it also has a lot of very bad ones: duplication of infrastuctures or research costs, wastes in advertising, lowering quality (competition tend to lead to cheap, low quality stuff, and not a bit more expensive, but much higher quality stuff), ...

The "drive" part is a fundamental part. I'll summarize quickly several points on that:

- Money is not a good incentive, especially in intelectual tasks. Studies showed that money is even often a counter-incentive, creating more negative stress than positive motivation (take 100 students of the same level, split them in two, to the first 50 say "if you pass this maths test, you'll have $50, else, you'll have nothing" and to the second 50 say "do this maths test, whatever you fail or succeed, you'll have $25", the second group will have a higher success rate - the stress created by money is more negative than the motivation created by money).

- Competition/money is not an incentive to make good stuff, to improve the quality. It's an incentive to be "better than the competitors" or "to earn money". Which can mean doing better quality stuff, but which can also mean harming your competitors, or to do a negative action (pollute more, lower quality, do more advertising, ...). I prefer a weaker incentive to do good to a stronge incentive to do bad.

- There are other incentive than money: fame, self-esteem, feeling of "well done work", feeling of being useful, ... or being reelected, if it's for an elected leader. Most of them do exist, and are much better than money because they are incentive to do good, not to do sometimes good things and sometimes bad things.

- The money incentive, in capitalism, only applies to the top leaders/stock owners, not to workers themselves. Most of the time, the average worker will not be affected by the performance of the company - probably even less than the average worker in socialism would be by a good performance of the society as a whole. Some times, it's even the opposite: workers who perform too good get punished: "oh, now we have enough money to pay the move to China, fine, good bye workers". (I'm not joking, it happens !)

- Socialism, and even capitalism, doesn't mean that everyone receive exactly the same amount of money. Many socialists/communists, like me, support giving higher wages (or lower working times) to dangerous/painful works (like firefighters, ...), for example. Rewarding more people who did a great job is also possible within socialism - when it's a collective decision, which will keep it within reasonable limits (when a CEO earns 40x more what a worker of the company earns, it's definitely not fair, the CEO didn't do 40x more work, and 40x is low, in many companies it's 400x or even more).

Socialism is not a fixed system, with very specific rules. It's a system that was invented as a transition system (from capitalism to communism), and therefore, it's exact forms will change during the transition phase. Socialism is more defined by its values and goals, than by very specific rules, which are meant to evolve. Those values and goals are democracy, common decision, working together, not leaving anyone behind, social ownership of means of production, fair rewarding, limiting wastes (like advertising or duplication of infrastructure), freedom form wage slavery, ...

I've always thought that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" could be used to describe slavery - people are worked as much as they can and given only what they need to live.

Slavery implies a master. If there is a master, it would no longer be "from each/to each".

But that aside, the meaning of "needs" in crucial here. Socialists/communists (the sentence "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is Marx' definition of communism) usually consider this "needs" in a very large sense, which include the need of freedom, the need of education/culture, the need of rest, the need of vacation/free time, the need of private life, ...

Socialism cannot be fully compatible with liberty. Socialism is based on the idea that someone else knows what's better for my property/labor/career than I do, and gives them ability to take them without my consent.

A voluntary social program that restributes wealth is fine. But forcing people into giving up property/money/labor for the 'common benefit' is simply economic authoritarianism and destroys the liberty of the individual.

Look, socialism is great on paper. It has wonderful ideals. But it doesn't work! We've seen that many times. A pure socialist economy will eventually collapse in on itself because socialists refuse to face the fact that in order to do something, a human being NEEDS INCENTIVE. PERIOD. Without incentive, you get no progress.

Of course, a pure capitalistic society isn't all that fantastic either. I favor a mixed economy, geared mostly towards a free market with a few regulations to prevent monopolies and the like from shitting all over people's social freedoms.

Now look, I know you guys would love to have a wonderful utopian society. I would most definitely, as it would give me time to do stuff I love, like learning. But the way you suggest just doesn't work. I'm sorry. I truly, truly wish it did. But it doesn't.

Slaves can't earn or spend money. That's pretty un-capitalist.

Capitalism is the ability for capital owner to buy others' working force. That's a limited form a slavery. In true, absolute capitalism, in which there would be no state to limit what you can sell/buy, selling youself as a slave would be as normal as anything else. Slavery is forbidden in most countries, because it's horrific, but by doing so, the governements start to reduce the economical freedoms and the ability of people to sell ... themselves.

Inherited slavery may be seem anticapitalist, but even that is not sure. If you can inherite from your parents a factory and huge amount of money (and therefore, the ability to buy others' working force and use it as you please, for your own benefit), why couldn't you inherit from your parent their debt making you a slave ? It's the same logic, just drawn out to its ultimate, and horrible, end.

If you are basing your analysis on that deluded piece of work by Herr Fukuyama, then it is only natural you would believe so.
No, I'm basing it on my own knowledge of history.

With pure capitalism, you get a wealthy ruling elite, while the working majority live in third world conditions. With pure socialism, you get Stalin's USSR (where the working majority live in third world conditions). With a mixture of the two - a competitive market economy mixed with accessible public services - you get a previously unprecedented level of quality of life.

With none of the above, you get the third world.

Socialism cannot be fully compatible with liberty. Socialism is based on the idea that someone else knows what's better for my property/labor/career than I do, and gives them ability to take them without my consent.
Except that socialism is based upon democracy and people having control over the economy and what happens.

No, I'm basing it on my own knowledge of history.

With pure capitalism, you get a wealthy ruling elite, while the working majority live in third world conditions. With pure socialism, you get Stalin's USSR (where the working majority live in third world conditions). With a mixture of the two - a competitive market economy mixed with accessible public services - you get a previously unprecedented level of quality of life.

With none of the above, you get the third world.
Ah, then I might agree somewhat. His thesis was that it was the last political system mankind will see, something to which I have dire objections.

Socialists have good intentions, I know that. I just don't think that giving such power to people who claim to represent "the people" is such a clever idea.

That's why most socialists nowadays want _at the same time_, a great increase in democracy, with participative democracy, and want to avoid giving too much power to a single entity. We are aware of the great flaws of USSR-like "socialism", and we are able to learn from the mistakes of the past.

I also don't like the idea of people defining themselves as "workers". Work is not who you are, it's a means to an end.

The society is basically divided in two classes: those who work for their living, and those who exploit the work of others with the capital they own. Sure, like every division, it's not very precise (and that's why we define more "classes", like "small bourgeoisie", "lumpen proletariat", ...), but it's good guideline to understand many aspect of the society and its evolution.

Inside those guidelines, yes, people are defined by their role in the society: are they "workers" ("proletariat"), are they "capital owners" ("bourgeoisie"), are they something in between "middle class" ("small bourgeoisie"), or are they even denied the right to work "unemployed" ("lumpen proletariat").

I am "worker", which means I work in order to receive the money I earn, and I side with "workers" against those who earn money just because they already had money before. Well, I do have a saving account, making me a tiny bit of a "bourgeois", but since I give much more to charity than what this saving account gives me, I'm in peace with my own consciousness ;)

Capitalism is the ability for capital owner to buy others' working force. That's a limited form a slavery. In true, absolute capitalism, in which there would be no state to limit what you can sell/buy, selling youself as a slave would be as normal as anything else. Slavery is forbidden in most countries, because it's horrific, but by doing so, the governements start to reduce the economical freedoms and the ability of people to sell ... themselves.

Inherited slavery may be seem anticapitalist, but even that is not sure. If you can inherite from your parents a factory and huge amount of money (and therefore, the ability to buy others' working force and use it as you please, for your own benefit), why couldn't you inherit from your parent their debt making you a slave ? It's the same logic, just drawn out to its ultimate, and horrible, end.

I don't see the point in calling extreme versions of things "true". People don't have "fake" views for not being extremists.

Besides, what you call "buying working force" ("employment" as it's normally called) isn't the same as slavery, because employees can leave their jobs. An employment is an agreement between employee and employer. The employee is selling a service to the other.

Ah, then I might agree somewhat. His thesis was that it was the last political system mankind will see, something to which I have dire objections.

I had to read that piece of rubbish for a University Module. I'm unsurprised he had to print so many contractions and retractions and changes.

Ah, then I might agree somewhat. His thesis was that it was the last political system mankind will see, something to which I have dire objections.
Of course it won't be the last. I'm a firm believer that nothing lasts forever. Everything crumbles sometime. That is also based on empirical evidence.

The society is basically divided in two classes: those who work for their living, and those who exploit the work of others with the capital they own. Sure, like every division, it's not very precise (and that's why we define more "classes", like "small bourgeoisie", "lumpen proletariat", ...), but it's good guideline to understand many aspect of the society and its evolution.

Inside those guidelines, yes, people are defined by their role in the society: are they "workers" ("proletariat"), are they "capital owners" ("bourgeoisie"), are they something in between "middle class" ("small bourgeoisie"), or are they even denied the right to work "unemployed" ("lumpen proletariat").

I am "worker", which means I work in order to receive the money I earn, and I side with "workers" against those who earn money just because they already had money before. Well, I do have a saving account, making me a tiny bit of a "bourgeois", but since I give much more to charity than what this saving account gives me, I'm in peace with my own consciousness ;)

Running a company is work too - or do you only mean things like manual labour? Besides, I'd say that the two types of people are those who refuse to do the mental work necessary to get into high-paying jobs, those who prefer the low salary/less stress of a low-level job and those who have ambition.

One thing I forgot to mention is that the competitive nature of private enterprise helps innovation and improvement of efficiency (assuming there are no monopolies).

That's not true in theory (competition create duplication of infrastructure, of research efforts, huge amount of ressources wasted in advertising, and even worse socially bad effects, like "low price-low quality" stuff, focus on the sort-term to benefit from volume effects, pollution, ...). Competition also suffer from the "innovation paradox": market leaders are usually afraid of too drastic innovations, because they have more to lose than to win, while they are the ones with highest margin of manoeuvre to invest in innovation, leading to much more ressources invested in tiny improvements of existing technologies than in really new things that could destabilise the market, and cost them their leader position.

And if you look at the facts, you can see than monopolist public services like we have in France for electricity (until last year...), train, post, ... are among the world most efficient, reliable and innovating. Don't forget also that one of the greatest invention of the XXest century, the transistor, was made by ... AT&T Bell Labs, in monopoly situation. Sure, those public services are not perfect, and could be greatly improved with more direct democracy. But they sill outperform the competitive markets.

Look, socialism is great on paper. It has wonderful ideals. But it doesn't work! We've seen that many times. A pure socialist economy will eventually collapse in on itself because socialists refuse to face the fact that in order to do something, a human being NEEDS INCENTIVE. PERIOD. Without incentive, you get no progress.
Why must that incentive be having more money than other people?
Why must it be money at all?

This issue has been referred to before, and Kilobugya talked of it much in a previous post.

- Money is not a good incentive, especially in intelectual tasks. Studies showed that money is even often a counter-incentive, creating more negative stress than positive motivation (take 100 students of the same level, split them in two, to the first 50 say "if you pass this maths test, you'll have $50, else, you'll have nothing" and to the second 50 say "do this maths test, whatever you fail or succeed, you'll have $25", the second group will have a higher success rate - the stress created by money is more negative than the motivation created by money).

- Competition/money is not an incentive to make good stuff, to improve the quality. It's an incentive to be "better than the competitors" or "to earn money". Which can mean doing better quality stuff, but which can also mean harming your competitors, or to do a negative action (pollute more, lower quality, do more advertising, ...). I prefer a weaker incentive to do good to a stronge incentive to do bad.

- There are other incentive than money: fame, self-esteem, feeling of "well done work", feeling of being useful, ... or being reelected, if it's for an elected leader. Most of them do exist, and are much better than money because they are incentive to do good, not to do sometimes good things and sometimes bad things.

- The money incentive, in capitalism, only applies to the top leaders/stock owners, not to workers themselves. Most of the time, the average worker will not be affected by the performance of the company - probably even less than the average worker in socialism would be by a good performance of the society as a whole. Some times, it's even the opposite: workers who perform too good get punished: "oh, now we have enough money to pay the move to China, fine, good bye workers". (I'm not joking, it happens !)

- Socialism, and even capitalism, doesn't mean that everyone receive exactly the same amount of money. Many socialists/communists, like me, support giving higher wages (or lower working times) to dangerous/painful works (like firefighters, ...), for example. Rewarding more people who did a great job is also possible within socialism - when it's a collective decision, which will keep it within reasonable limits (when a CEO earns 40x more what a worker of the company earns, it's definitely not fair, the CEO didn't do 40x more work, and 40x is low, in many companies it's 400x or even more).

Socialism cannot be fully compatible with liberty. Socialism is based on the idea that someone else knows what's better for my property/labor/career than I do, and gives them ability to take them without my consent.

No, that's not something linked to socialism. It's more linked to capitalism than to socialism.

In capitalism, if I want to eat and have no capital, I've no choice: I HAVE to give someone the power to decide what to do with my working force, to become his "slave wage", or I starve. Sure, I can chose my master (and that even is not true with high unemployment rates), but that doesn't make me much more free.

Capitalism cannot be fully compatible with liberty, because it means people will have to obey the orders of people whose only virtue is to be richer. In socialism, no one as to. At worse, you have to obey the orders of a leader that you participated in electing, which is already much less worse. And that's not even required.

Besides, what you call "buying working force" ("employment" as it's normally called) isn't the same as slavery, because employees can leave their jobs. An employment is an agreement between employee and employer. The employee is selling a service to the other.

And when leaving your job means starving to death, what's the difference between when leaving your slave position means being killed by a bullet ? Sure, in theory it's difference. But for the one in this situation, it's the same: work and obey or die.

<stuff about innovation and efficiency>
Yeah, I support regulated capitalism myself. Some things work better as private enterprise, others as public services.

And when leaving your job means starving to death, what's the difference between when leaving your slave position means being killed by a bullet ? Sure, in theory it's difference. But for the one in this situation, it's the same: work and obey or die.
People always have to work or die. If no-one worked, no food would be produced.

"October winds blow; Your contradictions doom you, Capitalist swine"...for some reason I find that quote so funny...gives me the image of an utterly crazed Marx with lightning in the background. XD

Running a company is work too - or do you only mean things like manual labour?

Running a company is a work. Owning a company is not. The two may be the same, but they are not always. I do not object people who run companies being paid for that - it's a needed job. I do oppose people earning (more) money just because they already had money before, like by buying stocks (or by buying land and renting it, ...). The same amount of work should be required to earn $1000, not depending on if you had $100 or $1000000000 before.

Besides, I'd say that the two types of people are those who refuse to do the mental work necessary to get into high-paying jobs, those who prefer the low salary/less stress of a low-level job and those who have ambition.

That's really outside of reality. More paid jobs are at the same time much more interesting, and usually much less dangerous and painful. People who do low-level jobs do them because they couldn't afford a good education, for a reason or another (lack of money to pay university, lack of quite room to work in because of crowd family, ...). Or those whose parents did a bad job at educating them (and that's not the fault of the workers), be it because their parents themselves were less educated (you can't pretend that the son of teachers like me, whose parents can help, as the same hope of being good at school than the son of factory workers who left school at 16), or had few free time, or because they were raised by a single parent, or whatever.

And very often, all those come together: parents who are less educated earn less money, and can more hardly pay their kids a good education, ...

Here on the forum I always hear about how "great" socialism is susspose to be, and yet, I never understood why. Here is my basic understanding about socialism. The government takes about half, or all of your money and redistribute it amongs the populace. (Eh maybe I'm thinking about communism). Anyways, there's no rich, no poor, everyone is in the middle. Now that may look good on paper, but when you put it into pratice. Because everyone is the "same" then there's no drive to be better, there's no drive to make better products, no competition. There's no reason to get rich, because the government will keep you in the middle. So why even bother trying to do anything? So, it seems to me if all of this is true, than the economy of a socialist country is going to be crap. Anything that you buy is going to be crap, and we'll all be miserable.

So, what is so great about socialism?

People who like socialism will have as many different answers as there are socialists. For me, socialism seems the ideal because it it the closest to the ideal Christian community as seen the the Book of Acts. "All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." Acts 2:44-45

People always have to work or die. If no-one worked, no food would be produced.

So there is a "work slavery" in capitalism, because you can only chose between a few masters. While in a socialist system, you can DECIDE (directly, or by electing the leader).

"October winds blow; Your contradictions doom you, Capitalist swine"...for some reason I find that quote so funny...gives me the image of an utterly crazed Marx with lightning in the background. XD
Now there's a YTMND in the making.

In all seriousness, though, what's truly better for people? What truly makes them happy? Being able to spend money, or being "given" everything they "need"? Frankly, I think regulated capitalism is a lot better than slightly deregulated socialism. There's a reason the U.S. economy--a mixed economy geared towards capitalism more than socialism--is stronger than most countries aimed towards socialism.

Now there's a YTMND in the making.

YTMND?

I agree with what you said essentially.

In capitalism you can shut down companies by refusing to interact with them. In order for them to get a monopoly you have to let them.

No, that's not something linked to socialism. It's more linked to capitalism than to socialism.

In capitalism, if I want to eat and have no capital, I've no choice: I HAVE to give someone the power to decide what to do with my working force, to become his "slave wage", or I starve. Sure, I can chose my master (and that even is not true with high unemployment rates), but that doesn't make me much more free.

Capitalism cannot be fully compatible with liberty, because it means people will have to obey the orders of people whose only virtue is to be richer. In socialism, no one as to. At worse, you have to obey the orders of a leader that you participated in electing, which is already much less worse. And that's not even required.
You would be right if food and other 'public goods' came out of magical rainbows.

However, who makes that food? Farmers do. Socialism says:

"You can't sell this. We're going to take it and give it to the people who need it. You think you can not work like everyone else? Too bad, you have to, because you're the ones that feed them."

And no, in capitalism, if you want to eat, you can start your own farm, or, god forbid, sharecrop. But socialism changes the loss of liberty from "You have to work to live" (This, in my opinion, is an unavoidable loss of liberty caused by basic biology), to "You have to work for someone else to live, and we'll tell you who".

Acting like socialism eliminates the need to work is beyond utopian, it's just plain wrong. Instead, socialism shifts the burden on to workers, educators, and other people whose line of work is considered a public service. The only reason some people "Don't have to follow orders" is that THEY aren't the ones who keep themselves alive.

Get your head out of the sand and realize that SOMEONE always has to work. Transfer of property should be VOLUNTARY. In capitalism, nobody FORCES you to work for them except the government during a draft or if you violate a law and have to do community service/go to a work farm. Basic biology forces you to work, but YOU can choose who YOU work for. Don't like your 'evil rich oppressor'? Find a different one. At least capitalism gives you a choice about how you feed/educate/provide services for yourself. In socialism, the whole system collapses without depriving the rights of those who are forced to feed the others who don't want to work to feed themselves.

So there is a "work slavery" in capitalism, because you can only chose between a few masters. While in a socialist system, you can DECIDE (directly, or by electing the leader).

No, 51% of the people choose a master for you. In capitalism, you can at least quit and work for someone you DO like.

YTMND?

I agree with what you said essentially.
YTMND.com is a popular internet site--mostly among teens--that is comedic in nature. It started when Max--the creator--bought the domain name ytmnd.com and hosted an image of Sean Connery pointing a finger towards the screen that was tiled, along with a sound bite from the movie Finding Forrester constantly repeating in the backround, saying "You're The Man Now Dog!" People found this amusing and decided to create other, similar things. Eventually it evolved into a huge site where anyone could easily make one. Most YTMNDs are based around fads: a person creates something amusing and lots of people create something based on it.

Of course, due to the mostly teenage nature, there are some rather offensive and downright disgusting ones. For instance, one of the first fads centered around a black man stealing someone's bike(he was referred to as a n***a). It was a GIF animation of a scene from an old video game, Mike Tyson's Punchout, I believe, where a black man--Mike's trainer--would ride a bike as Mike followed behind. Due to the teenage nature, the teen decided to call the black man the offensive term. Due to the racial stereotype of black people being criminals, he was said to have stolen it. There are other offensive fads, such as sacriligious stuff based around Jesus and the like.

But there are also some incredibly amusing fads. In short, YTMND is what you make of it. If you can--like me--ignore the offensive stuff and laugh at the actual humor, it's a fun place. If you can't...then...well...it's not for you.

That was all off topic, though.

Look, socialism is great on paper. It has wonderful ideals. But it doesn't work! We've seen that many times.

What I see in my history books is that any attempt to reach socialism was attacked so violently be defenders of capitalism, that either the socialists were slaughtered in a bloodbath, or they had to use themselves unacceptable means to survive, and by doing that, they became as reckless and inhumane as their capitalist foes. That's the real problem.

I never saw socialism collapsing by itself.

A pure socialist economy will eventually collapse in on itself because socialists refuse to face the fact that in order to do something, a human being NEEDS INCENTIVE. PERIOD. Without incentive, you get no progress.

I already answered on that. Oh, should I remind you that many of the greatest thinkers/artists/... of mankind were... not motivated by money ! Many of them lived in poverty, or with very moderate funds. Just look at one of the greatest thinkers of history: Einstein. He was a firm socialists, motivated only by his will to improve the world and to discover the truth. That's the kind of incentive which should encourage, teach our children, praise and reward. Not incentive to earn money at any social and ecological cost.

Now look, I know you guys would love to have a wonderful utopian society. I would most definitely, as it would give me time to do stuff I love, like learning. But the way you suggest just doesn't work. I'm sorry. I truly, truly wish it did. But it doesn't.

500 years ago, people like you were saying that allowing people to elect their leaders was a wonderful utopia, but that it couldn't work. 300 years ago, people like you were saying that abolishing slavery or nobility was a wonderful utopia, but that it couldn't work. Those who dreamed of an utopian world were those who enabled the progress in democracy and human rights with saw over those past centuries to become real.

I don't know if communism will exist one day. I believe it's possible. But neither you nor me can say for sure. That's not even the question. The question is how to set the path towards it, how to enable the coming generations to become closer and closer to it. How to make the world better, to fight unfairness, poverty, suffering. And for that, socialism ideal is a very powerful tool. And a light on the path.

As Victor Hugo said, when he was fighting against child labour, "we have to dream very high to not realize very low". And finally, child labour disappeared in western countries. Because of people who dreamed very high.

*snip*
Cool, thanks for the info. :)

In capitalism you can shut down companies by refusing to interact with them. In order for them to get a monopoly you have to let them.

That's the theory. You perfectly know it doesn't work this way. Companies like Coca-Cola can by paramilitary militia to kill unionists or kidnap their family, they'll still make billions of profits.

No, 51% of the people choose a master for you. In capitalism, you can at least quit and work for someone you DO like.

Once again, socialism doesn't mean centralism. Cooperative are a very common form of socialism, and you are of course free to chose your cooperative (as much as you are free to "quit" in capitalism, which is often not true, because quitting would mean dying), AND to elect the leaders in them !

That's the theory. You perfectly know it doesn't work this way. Companies like Coca-Cola can by paramilitary militia to kill unionists or kidnap their family, they'll still make billions of profits.

So? Then attack the profits, don't buy Coke. They can't kill you for THAT.

What I see in my history books is that any attempt to reach socialism was attacked so violently be defenders of capitalism, that either the socialists were slaughtered in a bloodbath, or they had to use themselves unacceptable means to survive, and by doing that, they became as reckless and inhumane as their capitalist foes. That's the real problem.

I never saw socialism collapsing by itself.



I already answered on that. Oh, should I remind you that many of the greatest thinkers/artists/... of mankind were... not motivated by money ! Many of them lived in poverty, or with very moderate funds. Just look at one of the greatest thinkers of history: Einstein. He was a firm socialists, motivated only by his will to improve the world and to discover the truth. That's the kind of incentive which should encourage, teach our children, praise and reward. Not incentive to earn money at any social and ecological cost.



500 years ago, people like you were saying that allowing people to elect their leaders was a wonderful utopia, but that it couldn't work. 300 years ago, people like you were saying that abolishing slavery or nobility was a wonderful utopia, but that it couldn't work. Those who dreamed of an utopian world were those who enabled the progress in democracy and human rights with saw over those past centuries to become real.

I don't know if communism will exist one day. I believe it's possible. But neither you nor me can say for sure. That's not even the question. The question is how to set the path towards it, how to enable the coming generations to become closer and closer to it. How to make the world better, to fight unfairness, poverty, suffering. And for that, socialism ideal is a very powerful tool. And a light on the path.

As Victor Hugo said, when he was fighting against child labour, "we have to dream very high to not realize very low". And finally, child labour disappeared in western countries. Because of people who dreamed very high.
You've a point there, true. Here's the thing though: unless you can figure out a way to create food, water, and other basic necessities without forcing someone to work--like, say, via replicator technology a la Star Trek--then no matter how ideal it is for some people, for others, it won't be. It will be far less than ideal in fact. I won't deny that eventually, in some way, socialism might work. But not in the here and now. We don't have the technology to get past the stumbling blocks.

Here on the forum I always hear about how "great" socialism is susspose to be, and yet, I never understood why. Here is my basic understanding about socialism. The government takes about half, or all of your money and redistribute it amongs the populace. (Eh maybe I'm thinking about communism). Anyways, there's no rich, no poor, everyone is in the middle. Now that may look good on paper, but when you put it into pratice. Because everyone is the "same" then there's no drive to be better, there's no drive to make better products, no competition. There's no reason to get rich, because the government will keep you in the middle. So why even bother trying to do anything? So, it seems to me if all of this is true, than the economy of a socialist country is going to be crap. Anything that you buy is going to be crap, and we'll all be miserable.

So, what is so great about socialism?

That is completley wrong, Canada is a socialist country and there are poor people, rich people and middle class people and yes that is communism you are thinking of. Socialism consists of free health care (for the poor) it may not be as good of health care as the democrats but since its free then even poor people with sicknesses can be treated and you dont have to be rich just to get an occasional check up.

That's the theory. You perfectly know it doesn't work this way. Companies like Coca-Cola can by paramilitary militia to kill unionists or kidnap their family, they'll still make billions of profits.
You don't necessarily need to form unions. You just don't buy their stuff or work there. Also, Coca-Cola can only do that (though I've seen no evidence) because people let them become that big in the first place.

Once again, socialism doesn't mean centralism. Cooperative are a very common form of socialism, and you are of course free to chose your cooperative (as much as you are free to "quit" in capitalism, which is often not true, because quitting would mean dying), AND to elect the leaders in them !

That still doesn't justify the fact that you can quit socialism only because the government is forcing farmers and doctors to keep you alive. Just because you can't feed yourself doesn't mean you're allowed to enslave farmers.

That is completley wrong, Canada is a socialist country and there are poor people, rich people and middle class people and yes that is communism you are thinking of. Socialism consists of free health care (for the poor) it may not be as good of health care as the democrats but since its free then even poor people with sicknesses can be treated and you dont have to be rich just to get an occasional check up.
Canada? Socialist? It's a mixed Keynesian style economy.

You would be right if food and other 'public goods' came out of magical rainbows.

However, who makes that food? Farmers do. Socialism says:

"You can't sell this. We're going to take it and give it to the people who need it. You think you can not work like everyone else? Too bad, you have to, because you're the ones that feed them."

Socialism doesn't say that AT ALL.

And no, in capitalism, if you want to eat, you can start your own farm, or, god forbid, sharecrop.

How so ? How do you start your farm, if you don't have land or money to buy it ? If you don't have seeds to plant ? If you don't have water to make it grow ? And so on.

No, you cannot do that. You cannot do that unless you already own capital.

But socialism changes the loss of liberty from "You have to work to live" (This, in my opinion, is an unavoidable loss of liberty caused by basic biology),

Capitalism says "you've to work for someone to live, and this one will be your master because he has money and you don't".

to "You have to work for someone else to live, and we'll tell you who".

Socialism doesn't say "we'll tell you who". That's just completly false. And socialism doesn't even forbid you from being self-employed, or creating a "company" with others - it just says that if many people work in a "company", then they have to decide together, and not only the one who has money.

Acting like socialism eliminates the need to work is beyond utopian, it's just plain wrong.

With nowadays technologies and infrastructures, we could have all the "needed to live" stuff by working less than one hour per day. But many of those ressources are wasted, in advertising, in duplicating infrastructures, in making cheap poor quality goods you've to change often, by brainwashing people to make them buy things they don't need, and so on.

While socialism would allow to lower the amount of "work" everyone does, capitalism creates unemployment, and very rich people. No, socialism wouldn't mean you don't have to work. It would mean the average worker has to work much less and has much more of socially useful goods/services.

Get your head out of the sand and realize that SOMEONE always has to work. Transfer of property should be VOLUNTARY.

It cannot be, inside capitalism.

In capitalism, nobody FORCES you to work for them except the government during a draft or if you violate a law and have to do community service/go to a work farm. Basic biology forces you to work, but YOU can choose who YOU work for.

Wonderful. You're a slave that can chose his master among a few rich masters. Oh, btw, pointing a gun to your heart isn't forcing - hey, it's basic biology which kill you if your heart stop, not the bullet.

Don't like your 'evil rich oppressor'? Find a different one.

How so ? By quitting, and risking to die before you can find a new one ? And if you can find a new one, it'll still be a master. Which may not be better than the previous one. And even so, it's still a master.

At least capitalism gives you a choice about how you feed/educate/provide services for yourself.

It doesn't give you any real choice. It just gives a choice between the plague and the cholera. I want clothes not made by kids working 12 hours/day. Most of the people want that. What can I find one ? On the nearest shop, sure I've the choice between red, blue, green, black and many shapes. But all with a "made in China" or similar sign. I've no choice. And so on, every action you do is like that: illusion of choice, but no real choice.

While in socialism, you have a real choice. Because you are deciding !

In socialism, the whole system collapses without depriving the rights of those who are forced to feed the others who don't want to work to feed themselves.

Wanting to grant basic needs to everyone isn't required in socialism. It's something I (and most socialists) strongly support, but it's not required in socialism.

So? Then attack the profits, don't buy Coke. They can't kill you for THAT.

That's what I do. But see the result.

In a democratic system, such situation wouldn't just exist. Be it the workers of Coca-Cola, or the citizen of the countries, any of those two bodies would vote against the use of paramilitary groups against unionists.

But inside the inherently non-democratic capitalist system, they can.

I think an inherent flaw in socialism is the belief that there is some kind of line between "the rich" and "the poor" which cannot be crossed. Poor people can and often do work their way up to success.

That still doesn't justify the fact that you can quit socialism only because the government is forcing farmers and doctors to keep you alive. Just because you can't feed yourself doesn't mean you're allowed to enslave farmers.

That has nothing to do with socialism.

I do support everyone being granted a decent life (and he doesn't mean farmers or doctors have to suffer), but you're confusing things right now.

I think an inherent flaw in socialism is the belief that there is some kind of line between "the rich" and "the poor" which cannot be crossed. Poor people can and often do work their way up to success.
Aye. When I was born, my family was dirt poor. My dad found a new job at a company in Ohio and for a short time--approximately three years--we would have been considered upper middle class, and indeed we were. We started declining since then, and have varied from middle class to working poor and back again, but the point is, you can and do vary. Capitalism, much like socialism, has a stigma about it that just isn't true. I'm not denying that it has a basis in fact, but that doesn't make it real.

I think an inherent flaw in socialism is the belief that there is some kind of line between "the rich" and "the poor" which cannot be crossed. Poor people can and often do work their way up to success.

That only happens in a few, very specific and exceptional cases. And most of the time, it implies a lot of luck and/or a lot of cheating (like Bill Gates did).

And if it does exist from the "middle class" to the "upper class", it very very very rarely exist from the lowest classes (unless by winning in the lottery, or something similar).

That only happens in a few, very specific and exceptional cases. And most of the time, it implies a lot of luck and/or a lot of cheating (like Bill Gates did).

And if it does exist from the "middle class" to the "upper class", it very very very rarely exist from the lowest classes (unless by winning in the lottery, or something similar).

I wasn't talking about "middle class" to "upper class". For example, someone a relative of mine knows immigrated to England, with little enough money that he and his wife had to eat only the cheapest food, but he refused to just accept his poverty. He's a millionaire now.

Socialist Monarchy under the rule of a truly decent and intelligent person = perfect government.

The problem is not with the government itself, but finding a decent and intelligent person to run it.

I wasn't talking about "middle class" to "upper class". For example, someone a relative of mine knows immigrated to England, with little enough money that he and his wife had to eat only the cheapest food, but he refused to just accept his poverty. He's a millionaire now.

Okay. Doing what?

Socialist Monarchy under the rule of a truly decent and intelligent person = perfect government.

The problem is not with the government itself, but finding a decent and intelligent person to run it.
That is impossible. No one could do it. I certainly couldn't. I would end up corrupt with power, as would anyone else, no matter how idealistic they are.

I wasn't talking about "middle class" to "upper class". For example, someone a relative of mine knows immigrated to England, with little enough money that he and his wife had to eat only the cheapest food, but he refused to just accept his poverty. He's a millionaire now.

How did he do that ? That's the real question. That it does happen, yes, it does, very rarely, but it does. That it depends of the person itself is another issue, most of the time, it's sheer luck. And that it doesn't involve immoral behavior (be it legal or not), is yet another issue. Look at Bill Gates. He became the richest man of the planet by... cheating, lying and stealing. (He bought a single copy of DOS 1.0 to the person who did it, then sold it illegally under a license to IBM telling them he did by himself, and when the original author threatened to sue, IBM paid him a few millions to avoid a scandal... and Bill Gates went away with it).

Okay. Doing what?
If I knew I would have posted it. My point was that it is possible. There are plenty of other examples if you don't like that one, but I'm not going to do your google/wikipedia search for you.

How so ? How do you start your farm, if you don't have land or money to buy it ? If you don't have seeds to plant ? If you don't have water to make it grow ? And so on.


Live in a public park, like our hunter-gathering ancestors did. You don't have the right to live the same way everyone else does.


Capitalism says "you've to work for someone to live, and this one will be your master because he has money and you don't".


Why is this wrong? You have to work for someone. It would make sense to recieve money from those who have money.


Socialism doesn't say "we'll tell you who". That's just completly false. And socialism doesn't even forbid you from being self-employed, or creating a "company" with others - it just says that if many people work in a "company", then they have to decide together, and not only the one who has money.


That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard for claiming socialism doesn't dictate who you work with. If I buy five cars and start a taxi company, and those cars are mine, then I get to decide what happens to those cars. Just because the other four guys who I hire to drive them want to do something else with them shouldn't mean they get to take MY property. If they don't like it, they can find another job.


With nowadays technologies and infrastructures, we could have all the "needed to live" stuff by working less than one hour per day. But many of those ressources are wasted, in advertising, in duplicating infrastructures, in making cheap poor quality goods you've to change often, by brainwashing people to make them buy things they don't need, and so on.


Technology does not justify slavery to the government. I don't care if its only for one hour a day, on principle it's still wrong.


While socialism would allow to lower the amount of "work" everyone does, capitalism creates unemployment, and very rich people. No, socialism wouldn't mean you don't have to work. It would mean the average worker has to work much less and has much more of socially useful goods/services.


So if you accept that work must always exist, then socialism is no better than capitalism in terms of 'enslaving' people into work.


It cannot be, inside capitalism.


Bullshit. See the taxi company example. Socialism says that those people, by virtue of democratic majority, can take my property. Capitalism says those cars are mine and I can do what I want with them. A good democracy protects the rights of the minority. The majority can also vote to kill someone, but that doesn't make the act right.


Wonderful. You're a slave that can chose his master among a few rich masters. Oh, btw, pointing a gun to your heart isn't forcing - hey, it's basic biology which kill you if your heart stop, not the bullet.


Wow, two strawmans in one.

I'd rather be a slave to a master I choose than a slave to the master the majority chose. Lesser evil wins.

Your gun argument is just stupid, and I fail to see how it is relevant it all to topic at hand. Yes, you do have to accept death, but you don't have to accept murder. While dying may be involuntary, killing is VERY voluntary.


How so ? By quitting, and risking to die before you can find a new one ? And if you can find a new one, it'll still be a master. Which may not be better than the previous one. And even so, it's still a master.


The majority and those they elect is still a master, and if I'm the unlucky 49%, it's a master I didn't choose. Might and numbers do not make right. That's mob rule, not democracy.


It doesn't give you any real choice. It just gives a choice between the plague and the cholera. I want clothes not made by kids working 12 hours/day. Most of the people want that. What can I find one ? On the nearest shop, sure I've the choice between red, blue, green, black and many shapes. But all with a "made in China" or similar sign. I've no choice. And so on, every action you do is like that: illusion of choice, but no real choice.

While in socialism, you have a real choice. Because you are deciding !


I want a unicorn? WHERE'S MY FRIGGIN' UNICORN? Does socialism give me the right to make that unicorn without actually having any of the means to make it?

If you're not satisfied by the products corporations offer you, well, lucky for you there's a thing called CAPITALISM. Believe it or not, but if you work, you can buy cloth and MAKE YOUR OWN DAMN SHIRTS if it irritates you so much. Or does socialism cause your every need and desire to be met by using magic star-trek replicator machines? Honestly, socialism would not solve your shirt problem unless it forced the tailors to make whatever kind of shirt you wanted.


Wanting to grant basic needs to everyone isn't required in socialism. It's something I (and most socialists) strongly support, but it's not required in socialism.

Then I'll laugh when they all starve when the farmers decide not to feed their lazy asses for free and socialism collapses.

How did he do that ? That's the real question. That it does happen, yes, it does, very rarely, but it does. That it depends of the person itself is another issue, most of the time, it's sheer luck. And that it doesn't involve immoral behavior (be it legal or not), is yet another issue. Look at Bill Gates. He became the richest man of the planet by... cheating, lying and stealing. (He bought a single copy of DOS 1.0 to the person who did it, then sold it illegally under a license to IBM telling them he did by himself, and when the original author threatened to sue, IBM paid him a few millions to avoid a scandal... and Bill Gates went away with it).
Bill Gates made lots of money because people bought his stuff. Nobody made them. People make poor choices when buying stuff. People make poor choices about a lot of things. Should we remove all their choices so that nobody ever runs the risk of making a mistake or actually having to think for themselves?

Bill Gates made lots of money because people bought his stuff.

First, he stole, cheated and lied. He did that, because capitalism was encouraging him to do so. Because his motive was not to create a good operating system (like it was for many others), but to EARN MONEY. That's were the incentive becomes counter-productive.

Nobody made them.

Advertising doesn't even any effect, that's why so many money is wasted in it.

Oh, and wait, that I need to windows to use program <whatever> is nobody making me to buy windows ? And that windows is sold with 99% of new computers is nobody making me to buy windows ? When MS says to hardware sellers: "if you sell only computers with windows, each windows copy will be cheaper", it's not forcing ? And it's not MS specific. Coca-cola does the same: if a restaurant only sells drinks from Coca-Cola as soft drinks, they get all Coca-Cola stuff cheaper. That's where capitalism leads to.

People make poor choices when buying stuff.

Because of advertising, of lack of real information, of forced sales, ... because of capitalism.

People make poor choices about a lot of things. Should we remove all their choices so that nobody ever runs the risk of making a mistake or actually having to think for themselves?

No. But if you remove the money incentive (or most of it, at least), people will stop doing advertising. They'll stop trying to force you to buy. They'll concentrate on other incentive: making a technically good OS. Making a easy to use OS.

And for softwares, they would made Free Software, allowing everyone to fix, improve, adapt the software. Look at the Free Software community. Look at how when people work together, without private ownership, things work wonderfully. Free Software outperforms proprietary softwares on many, many, many tasks. Because cooperation outperforms competition. And it doesn't mean less choice - the exact opposite. Just look at the number of GNU/Linux distribution. Or the huge variety of graphical environements you can have. Or the variety in anything: browsers, mail agents, document processors, ...

And for softwares, they would made Free Software, allowing everyone to fix, improve, adapt the software. Look at the Free Software community. Look at how when people work together, without private ownership, things work wonderfully. Free Software outperforms proprietary softwares on many, many, many tasks. Because cooperation outperforms competition. And it doesn't mean less choice - the exact opposite. Just look at the number of GNU/Linux distribution. Or the huge variety of graphical environements you can have. Or the variety in anything: browsers, mail agents, document processors, ...
Actually Free Software is a perfect example of creating an alternative without having to change the government to something that makes people do things the way you want.

And for softwares, they would made Free Software, allowing everyone to fix, improve, adapt the software. Look at the Free Software community. Look at how when people work together, without private ownership, things work wonderfully. Free Software outperforms proprietary softwares on many, many, many tasks. Because cooperation outperforms competition. And it doesn't mean less choice - the exact opposite. Just look at the number of GNU/Linux distribution. Or the huge variety of graphical environements you can have. Or the variety in anything: browsers, mail agents, document processors, ...

And did they build their own computers from scratch too? Were the computer chips 'open source'?

Tell me how an 'open-source' car would work. How about 'open-source' airplanes and trains. Hmm... Don't answer that question, because without the motivation to make profit I doubt anyone would ever design complex machinery and electronics from scratch if there wasn't any profit behind them. Sure, it's easy to give knowledge for free, but to mine raw materials and assemble them into something infinitely more complex... I doubt anyone would invent, create, and give away something like that for nothing.

And did they build their own computers from scratch too? Were the computer chips 'open source'?

There is a free CPU and free video card project. It's harder than Free Software, especially in a capitalist system, but it can work.

Tell me how an 'open-source' car would work. How about 'open-source' airplanes and trains. Hmm... Don't answer that question, because without the motivation to make profit I doubt anyone would ever design complex machinery and electronics from scratch if there wasn't any profit behind them. Sure, it's easy to give knowledge for free, but to mine raw materials and assemble them into something infinitely more complex... I doubt anyone would invent, create, and give away something like that for nothing.

Creating, inventing the design of a CPU/... and producing it are two completly different issues. The innovative part, the conception and design, would be much better in a "Free Software" way, without patents, trade secrets, and with everyone able to send patches to the VHDL (or similar) code. But that would require a socialised factory to build them. Well, it's possible inside capitalism, but much, much harder.

Actually Free Software is a perfect example of creating an alternative without having to change the government to something that makes people do things the way you want.

Socialism doesn't mean that the governement make people do things - it's the opposite.

Free Software is socialism applied to software. It's the domain in which socialism is either to apply, but even there, there are problems in doing it inside capitalism. The first problem being that many corporations do their best to destroy Free Software, from software patents to DMCA, to volunteer incompatibility, ...

The second problem is that people have to chose between either earning money for their work or helping the community. We should have to chose ? We couldn't we do both ? The people who contribute to Linux or GNU deservers as much, if not more, than those who contribute to Windows. We fall back to the charity problem: the more nice people, the ones who are think about others have less, while the more egoistic people are rewarded. That's a very major flaw, because it's highly unfair, and because it encourages people to be egoistic.

That is completley wrong, Canada is a socialist country and there are poor people, rich people and middle class people and yes that is communism you are thinking of. Socialism consists of free health care (for the poor) it may not be as good of health care as the democrats but since its free then even poor people with sicknesses can be treated and you dont have to be rich just to get an occasional check up.

Canada is not a socialist country and never has been. We've had nothing but Liberal or Conservative federal governments. Granted, we do have a markedly more social democratic caste than our southern neighbour, but most of the social advances we enjoy have come only as a result of a limited number of minority governments, generally no more than a couple of years in duration, in which the NDP have held the balance of power and FORCED the Liberals to enact progressive legislation or risk being turfed from office -- 'cause you know the Liberals would never do so if their feet weren't held to the fire. They were in fact the party that presented the most opposition to medicare, and they were in power for most of the 20th century.

There is a free CPU and free video card project. It's harder than Free Software, especially in a capitalist system, but it can work.


Not in a completely socialist lobby it can't. Do these guys actually go and process the silicon?

Think about it. Without the initiative for profit, nobody's going to go start something like an iron mine or turn sand into silicon for computers and such. Sure, knowledge-based production is possible, but nobody's going to do heavy manual labor and industrial work for free.

Think about it. Without the initiative for profit, nobody's going to go start something like an iron mine or turn sand into silicon for computers and such. Sure, knowledge-based production is possible, but nobody's going to do heavy manual labor and industrial work for free.

Actually I think you're wrong there. Eventually someone's going to want iron, silicon, or whatnot so they'll go out and mine it / smelt it themselves. People will create their own initiative without the need for monatary gain.

Not in a completely socialist lobby it can't. Do these guys actually go and process the silicon?

Think about it. Without the initiative for profit, nobody's going to go start something like an iron mine or turn sand into silicon for computers and such. Sure, knowledge-based production is possible, but nobody's going to do heavy manual labor and industrial work for free.
I'd go another step further and say that without private property, a society can't succeed. The kibbutz's in Israel are great examples of communal societies that can't exsist without a subsidy from the government. Guess who pays that subsidy? Right, people with property.

Actually I think you're wrong there. Eventually someone's going to want iron, silicon, or whatnot so they'll go out and mine it / smelt it themselves. People will create their own initiative without the need for monatary gain.
History is against you on that. I can't name any modern society that has ever flourished in the absence of private property.

I think the best thing about socialism is that when you get to be one of the socialist party leaders, you can have the system take the good stuff from everyone else.

Then you can tell the people you took the stuff from how good they have it.

I think the best thing about socialism is that when you get to be one of the socialist party leaders, you can have the system take the good stuff from everyone else.

Then you can tell the people you took the stuff from how good they have it.
Geez, I missed the whole point of the discussion again.

That's social liberalism. In socialism you don't have an income except what the government gives you (based on your "needs", not what you do). The reward for working is to not be shot, or whatever the punishment for selfishness is.
now what youve just describes is communism.
socialism aint quite the same thing,
how i see it-its redistribution of wealth,benfits for all such as healthcare,and some kind of safety net so that people are not dying from lack of water while others fill their 3 swimming pools.
maybe thats just my moderate version.
no political ideology is completly correct so its probably better to mix them,
say the healthcare and safety net and wealth redistribution of socialism, with the freedoms and personal responsibility of liberalism with the moderate reform and promotion of business of conservatism.
hmmm?possibly....

One thing I forgot to mention is that the competitive nature of private enterprise helps innovation and improvement of efficiency (assuming there are no monopolies).
but there always are monopolies, come on we both live in britain(although im from wales myself) look at tesco, roughly 2 pounds in every ten sopent in britain goes to tesco,who put smaller stores out of business and use sweatshop in china to make their uber cheap clothes.

I don't see the point in calling extreme versions of things "true". People don't have "fake" views for not being extremists.

Besides, what you call "buying working force" ("employment" as it's normally called) isn't the same as slavery, because employees can leave their jobs. An employment is an agreement between employee and employer. The employee is selling a service to the other.

often employees cannot leave their jobs as they have families to feed and bills to pay.
and some corporations such as mc donalds dont even allow their workers to join trade unions,and even employ spies to spy on their employees to make sure they arent trying to improve their working conditions through unions.

Not in a completely socialist lobby it can't. Do these guys actually go and process the silicon?

Think about it. Without the initiative for profit, nobody's going to go start something like an iron mine or turn sand into silicon for computers and such. Sure, knowledge-based production is possible, but nobody's going to do heavy manual labor and industrial work for free.

For whom is the initiative for profits ? Not for the miners. Not for those who do heavy manual labor. In capitalism, they'll just work for a low wage, without any right of decision.

Inside socialism, they would still do the work for a wage. But for a higher wage (because there will be less profits) AND while taking part of the decisions.

I do not want people to work "for free", as capitalism forces some to (either we work for free doing Free Software for the benefit of all, or we are paid to work against society by creating non-free software). I do want both manual and intelectual workers do have a fair reward of their work. That's something capitalism fails to do, and that only socialism enable.

History is against you on that. I can't name any modern society that has ever flourished in the absence of private property.

I can't name any modern society that tried to reach socialism and wasn't either slaughtered by the capitalists, or forced to ressort to totalitarian means to survive from outside agression.

Well, Venezuela and Bolivia managed to walk the road towards socialism without being either slaughtered or ressorting to totalitarian means, and I hope it'll last, but they are just at the beginning of the process.

Now there's a YTMND in the making.

In all seriousness, though, what's truly better for people? What truly makes them happy? Being able to spend money, or being "given" everything they "need"? Frankly, I think regulated capitalism is a lot better than slightly deregulated socialism. There's a reason the U.S. economy--a mixed economy geared towards capitalism more than socialism--is stronger than most countries aimed towards socialism.

and yet there are little on no social provisions for the poor.the gap between rich and poor is massive.
I was always under the impression that america didnt have a mixed economy but a single free market economy.
the reason the american economy is stong(and that is debatable)is because american multinationals exploit cheap labour in the developing world and bring all the profits back to america.
the american economy relies ion the exploitation of smaller nations.
heres an interestng fact for you.
It is thought the amount of money needed to treat and reverse the spread of aids in africa is 27.6 billion
the top ten richest people in the world(of whom 7 are american)are worth in total 28.9 billion.
(these figures are accurate for 2004)

I think that Capatilism, Communism and Socialism dont work on their own. Most well developed countries try to have a mix of Cappatilist and Socialist values and it seems to work the best. Socialism :Free healthcare, Education work to help enterprise with a better educated and healthy workforce. Also then there is schemes and grants to stimulate enterprise and low corporation taxes for Capatilists.

For whom is the initiative for profits ? Not for the miners. Not for those who do heavy manual labor. In capitalism, they'll just work for a low wage, without any right of decision.




The miners don't start the mining companies... If there is no private property, then EVERYONE owns the mines, and there is no reason for workers to form any kind of developed infrastructure if everyone can use it.

Again, nobody will BUILD complex things and do manual labor if they recieve zero benefit. If you cannot have private property and capital, you're basically guaranteeing underdevelopment. Nobody goes and sets up mines 'for the good of society'.

Because if you don't have the freedom to do with your possessions (in this case money) as you wish (so long as noone else's freedoms are being infringed upon), then you are not free. And I don't know about you, but not having freedom doesn't appeal to me.

Well I would set up a mine and give away what I get for free.I would feel good about doing my work.I know that I would do my bit in helping keep my family cloth and fed.

Not everybody do what they do for money.

Why is everyone having a reasonable amount of money, without being the extremes of rich and poor, making everyone the "same"? Is money the only thing that gives us any worth or makes us who we are?
Why should money be the only "drive to be better" or "drive to make better products"?
Who says there is "no competition"?
Why is money seen as the only reason to "do anything"?

You pressume a hell of a lot of (false) things in your criticism of socialism.

Wrong.

He may not be the most eloquent critic of Socialism, but by God, he's nailed it!

Well I would set up a mine and give away what I get for free.I would feel good about doing my work.I know that I would do my bit in helping keep my family cloth and fed.

Not everybody do what they do for money.
Yes, you might very well do that, however, it is not like very many other people would though and because a mine needs a mining crew to effectively utilize its ores your efforts would end up being very small. Most people only do these things because they have the incentive to do them, you are right that money is not the only incentive, there is also social inclusion, basic needs, personal affections and so on and so forth and without money to play apart in accessing these things that we desire most people would just go forward and take part in those things. I would rather go talk to friends than mine a mine or assuming I had a family I would rather be with my wife and teach my kids how to read or fly kites or something. I would definitely not want to be the village garbageman if I did not have to be.

Pretty much without the fact that work is required for money, society would collapse(assuming there is no coersion) because we all have something we would rather do than work, we might still do some societally beneficial things but we would not do the amount that we are capable of and society would fragment and collapse as the economy would go into the toilet.

In a capitalist society, yes. A capitalist society revolves around those ideas, and that basis. So, obviously, money is what keeps the capitalist society going.

Except we're talking about a socialist society. Which means the basis of everything wouldn't be money.

Plus, that doesn't always work. When money is the main issue, profit is the main thing in people's minds and that can outweigh want for quality, true betterment, helping mankind etc. If you can seize control/power or find a situation where you won't lose it's hold, or can give an appearance of quality or betterment etc, then you don't actually need to improve or produce things of high quality.

So the solution is to create a society where societal pressures force you to produce things of "quality", "art", "truth", etc... No. I always thought that true quality would be something that occured naturally without having the societal pressure. I would rather have an incentive for crap that I don't have to create or buy in the first place than force people to flounder unless they come up with "true quality for the good of the whole".

I would rather have a non-mediocre society without dumbed-down commercialist crap too, but something called "the distribution curve" prevents that. I guess the only solution is to try to associate with those who are at my intelligence level. "To each according to his ability, to each according to his need", right? Also, you can associate with people who agree with you without bringing down the whole society in the process, when you live under capitalism!

If you're so worried about the quality of commodities as well as the quality of people, try making something for yourself that you can enjoy on your own. Capitalism allows you to survive and do things you cannot do on your own so you can have the resources to do things "on your own". The fact that people substitute things they can do on their own for things other people give them (i.e. dombed-down garbage) is none of my business. If socialist theory is correct, i.e. people can make/do things without money, then any inequality shouldn't be a problem when it comes to doing/making things. When it comes to surviving, there's something called economic scarcity combined with absolute gain which keeps inequality intact, which can and needs to be remedied with some aspects of Socialism, such as safety nets, etc.

Yet, its going to be pretty tough to try and gather resources/food/commodities when you won't have access to a consumer market at all, and quality will go way down when people only have the resources to make non-functional crap. Yet, you don't like consumer markets, so I shouldn't bother telling you.

----------------------------------------------------

To all who say that Socialism is a good idea on paper:

Shove it. If a society is fully implemented and doesn't work in practice, it won't work on paper either. Pretty much all political theories "work well on paper". When we criticise a political theory, we criticise is as though it were implemented in practice, so if somebody who agrees with Fascism tells you that universal happpiness will be achieved under Fascism, and you respond that it will/has caused untold human suffering, you are criticising it as though the theory were in practice. Those who composed the theory, meanwhile, composed it as though it were implemented in practice also. If it doesn't work, the theory fails. Socialism hasn't worked, therefore it won't work on paper until it fulfills the goals it sets out to accomplish. It's as simple as that.

No response?

No response?
Nope, I guess you are a thread killer... well... not really, I think that the Socialism trend is dying down so less people are interested in commenting. Oh well, you did make a good argument so you can congratulate yourself on that.

Thanks Holyawesomness!

Looks like Capitalism won! :p