NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just wondering what would be a better form of goverment if the entire world united as one please post your response with why you feel which one is better and feel free to argue please i want to be convinced on which one is better

Both are evil when taken to extreme.

There has to be a balance as in all things. Under socialism people refuse to do their best. Under capitalism you have as "survival of the fittest" situation where the rich have no compassion for the weaker poor. And that power is often inherited by less worthy, and many of the "fittest" are locked into the bottom.

"Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both."

Martin Luther King, Jr.
( http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr. )

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite"

John Kenneth Galbraith
( http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Kenneth_Galbraith )

"The proposal of any new law or regulation which comes from [businessmen], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

Adam Smith
( http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Smith#Associations )

"All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and allowed to live only so far as the interest to the ruling class requires it."

Karl Marx
( http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Marx )


That's all "I" have to say about that. :D

As usual the indecisive member of society is wrong. Capitalism is the superior of the two systems. It has longevity that socialism lacks and it is harder to take advantage of capitalist system than a socialist one.

Under socialism the sweat of a man's brow belongs to everyone, including those that did nothing to earn it. Think of it like the story of the Little Red Hen; one day a selfish bitch known as the little red hen decided she wanted some bread. First you need the ingrediants for the loaf and not seeing a Piggly Wiggly way out in the middle of Nowhere county she'd have to get the grain out of the ground. She asked her friends if they'd help her plow a field, plant some seed, and harvest some wheat. They told her to piss off because they were jacking off to some Rule 34 so she did it all herself. Then she asked if they'd help turn the harvested wheat into doughy goodness and bake it. Again, the sick fucks were too interested in jacking off to Rule 34 to give a damn and told her to close the door to the basement where they dwelled. When the bread was done baking the Little Red Hen decided to be a sadistic selfish bitch and asked if her friends, which after the months of jacking off it took to grow and harvest the wheat had now depleted their vespene gas and were starving, if they wanted any of the bread she had finished making.

Under a capitalist system she'd be able to deny her friends any of the spoils because they'd done no work to earn anything and she would be entitled to do with her bread, fields, or anything else whatever she wanted. Under a socialist system she'd have to give her friends some of the bread because all work and spoils are pooled and everyone gets an equal share no matter how much or little they actually contributed.

I know my version of the Little Red Hen probably isn't dafe for children but it does get the point acrosst with a "T".

I'd say a sensible mix of both

Socialism: freedom, equality, and democracy.

Capitalism, but ensuring fair opportunities to climb up for everybody (eg. education for the poor)

Socialism: freedom, equality, and democracy.
Freedom? No, everyone is forced to give up what they have and take an equal share. That's not freedom, that's coersion.

Equality? Only if everyone contributes equally. There's nothing to stop someone from contributing nothing to the pile then taking an equal share from it, like a parsite. That's not equality, that's exploitation. If you forced everyone to work then there wouldn't be any freedom in socialism except from deciding things for yourself.

Democracy? Three men are standing together, none have done anything wrong yet two of them decide to vote that the third should die. Should they be permitted to kill him? A strict interpretation of democracy says they have every right to. Democracy says that the two men have the right to deprive the third man of everything he has, including his life; their authority nothing more than majority opinion.

Luthorism trumps both.

We just had a thread exactly the same as this one a few weeks ago..

Depends entirely upon your view of human nature. You might as well ask whether people are naturally good or naturally evil.

everyone is forced to give up what they have

"What they have" is based on everybody else being coerced into not taking it.

Property is always coercion. The only change here is the owner... and instead of an elite minority controlling the means of production for their own benefit, the people gain control over the institutions that dominate their lives.

That sounds like freedom to me.

Equality? Only if everyone contributes equally. There's nothing to stop someone from contributing nothing to the pile then taking an equal share from it, like a parsite. That's not equality, that's exploitation.

Exploitation? Of whom--those who choose to work knowing where it will go? That hardly sounds "exploitative" to me.

And your conception of socialism is very limited if it means "absolute economic equality" to you.

A strict interpretation of democracy says they have every right to.

Most interpretations of democracy are much broader than "strict majority rule"... and for good reason.

Depends entirely upon your view of human nature. You might as well ask whether people are naturally good or naturally evil.
Everybody lies.

Capitalism is not a form of government.

/thread.

Everybody lies.zomg paradox!!!111 teh paradox dragon, it will eats you!

http://www.partiallyclips.com/storage/paradox_lg.png

If you forced everyone to work then there wouldn't be any freedom in socialism except from deciding things for yourself.


So when the capitalist takes sole and exclusive ownership of a given resource, as is allowed through the institution of private property, requiring me to become an employee or surrender the product of my own labor in order to gain access to what I need to survive, I'm somehow not being "forced to work?"

The inconsistency in your statement resides in the lop-sided manner in which you reject exclusive ownership and control. I presume you reject exclusive ownership and control by the state, yet you allow the private capitalist to assume absolutist control and to exploit for personal profit what are essentially the exact same ill effects associated thereto.

A socialist simply rejects exclusive ownership and control, period. Whether the parasite it benefits is a state bureaucrat or a business investor.


Democracy? Three men are standing together, none have done anything wrong yet two of them decide to vote that the third should die. Should they be permitted to kill him? A strict interpretation of democracy says they have every right to.


Which is why no sane person, including those adhering to socialist ideology, actually advocates such "a strict interpretation of democracy." Which is why every viable and just democracy includes limits on what falls under the authority of the democratic decision-making process. Which is why your argument above is a rather blatant and ridiculous strawman fallacy.

So when the capitalist takes sole and exclusive ownership of a given resource, as is allowed through the institution of private property, requiring me to become an employee or surrender the product of my own labor in order to gain access to what I need to survive, I'm somehow not being "forced to work?"

"the capitalist" doesn't "take" ownership, "the capitalist" "surrenders the product of" their own labor in order to gain access to it, and you "surrender" your labor to work for them if you choose.

The way you're talking sounds like you really believe that it goes like this:

1) Water Company declares that all Water on the planet is now owned by Water Company.
2) Water Company now decrees that you have to work for Water Company in order to drink water.

Particularly when you mention "absolutist control," a rather misleading statement. I own private property, I don't have "absolutist control" over it at all.

Capitalism is not a form of government.

/thread.

Anything that involves two or more people making agreements or decisions together will require some kind of governance. An agreement is worthless if it cannot be enforced.

.daerht\

Anything that involves two or more people making agreements or decisions together will require some kind of governance.

Require governance to happen =/= a form of government.

Otherwise, in answer to the OP, I say "the kind of government where I ask my girlfriend if I can fuck her in the ass and she says yes."

The way you're talking sounds like you really believe that it goes like this:

1) Water Company declares that all Water on the planet is now owned by Water Company.
2) Water Company now decrees that you have to work for Water Company in order to drink water.


History provides ample examples of attempts to achieve quite similar objectives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_Town (I happen to live in such a "master planned community," as they're euphemized now...)

These examples do not necessarily span the entire planet (God knows multinational corporations are trying their damnedest), but for a person who doesn't happen to be an owner, the difference is scale is perhaps not all that great.

History provides ample examples of attempts to achieve quite similar objectives.

Sure, attempts. You said, however, that it is "allowed through the institution of private property." However, the mere institution of private property (as opposed to what, communal property or nomadic ownership concepts?) does not say yes or no as to whether owning "water" as a "given resource" is allowed. Practicality and law however, even in Evil Capitalist Land, state that it isn't.

Require governance to happen =/= a form of government.

Otherwise, in answer to the OP, I say "the kind of government where I ask my girlfriend if I can fuck her in the ass and she says yes."

But, of course, an entire economic system for a given society is going to involve more than two people. Which is going to require similarly large institutions of governance, spanning a greater jurisdiction than just your personal bubble.

Unless you're willing to repeal and eliminate all laws establishing or protecting private property, trade, or any of the rest of the government which capitalism apparently doesn't require in order to even exist in the first place.

But, of course, an entire economic system for a given society is going to involve more than two people. Which is going to require similarly large institutions of governance, spanning a greater jurisdiction than just your personal bubble.

Unless you're willing to repeal and eliminate all laws establishing or protecting private property, trade, or any of the rest of the government which capitalism apparently doesn't require in order to even exist in the first place.

Strawman. You're trying to say that if something requires government, it IS a form of government. I don't care how many laws establish or protect a thing, that does not make that thing a form of government. The OP stated that "capitalism" was a form of government. It isn't, period; quit defending a moronic statement especially as you yourself didn't make it.

You're trying to say that if something requires government, it IS a form of government.


What I'm saying is that there isn't any practical difference between "requires" and "is." If capitalism "requires" a particular form of governance in order to function or exist from the start, that government may as well be an integral part of what it "is."

"Human body" and "Human heart" are indeed technically separate concepts and objects. But the second is still a critical part of the definition and function of the first. They are both critical to the "human."

Likewise, the "capitalist economy" and the "capitalist governance" are both "capitalist."

Sure, attempts. You said, however, that it is "allowed through the institution of private property."


The attempts are indeed "allowed through the institution of private property." And even if imperfect, the attempts are still nonetheless capable of great damage. This is why sensible governments have instituted the practicality and law you cite in order to move society away from the apparent pure capitalist ideal.


(as opposed to what, communal property or nomadic ownership concepts?)


The "ownership" isn't actually the problem, per se. The problem is the extent and range over which a given person, or group, extends that ownership.

Naturally, reasonable people argue against state socialism by citing the efficiency and advantage gained by decentralization of both ownership and control. It seems to occur all to often, however, that the same people turn a blind eye to the mergers, take overs, or other efforts on the part of private owners to do exactly the opposite, centralizing ownership into increasingly large economic bodies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Corporation) (which have a penchant for colluding with the state previously criticized, no less (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism)).

I'm not out to tax anyone into oblivion or confiscate every last piece of one's possessions. I simple desire for those who cry out for "decentralization" or against "bureaucracy" to do so consistently.

For a specific prescription, I like the idea of the worker owned and operated enterprise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative) within what is otherwise a competitive market economic system. Spread out the ownership and control, and let people benefit from and enjoy the product of their labor.

capitalism. A specific form of capitalism however, utopian nutjobs like myself aren't limited to socialists, you know.

Moderate capitalism.

The Loyal Opposition seems to misunderstand investing. When a man invests in something he is providing materials to the worker, invetor, or really any developer of anything in exchange for some of the fruits of the labor. An investor is like the farmer who sells the baker some wheat to make bread. Without the farmer the baker would have nothing to bake just as without the investor the factory worker, owner, store clerk, etc. would have nothing to sell. The investor only is permitted to as much of the pie as he pays for. The businessman only owns a certain amount.

Also, I fail to see why someone would claim that socialism promotes democracy, support mob rule as superior to personal choice, but then turn around and say that you cannot have complete democracy. If democracy is freedom but you say democracy should be limited then you are saying that freedom should be limited. Just how limited I wonder? Let me ask you this, would you let two or more others decide every aspect of your entire life, make every choice for you? Or would you argue that such an arangement be tyranical? Oppressive? Admit it, the only freedom that socialism offers is freedom from personal choice, and that is neither liberating nor just nor desireable.

I also see no inconsistency in the cited statement. If forced to work then you lose the freedom to choose and become a slave. Coersion only frees you from deciding things for yourself.

You should look in the mirror, you accuse me of being lop-sided in my rejection of state ownership and control but the only way that exploitation of a socialist system could be minimized is through a state. Either that or everyone has to contribute and equal share or you'll have to reserve the right to deny those that do not contribute, the former being unrealistic as there would be no way to enforce such a measure short of lobotomy and the latter wouldn't be very socialist.

The thing about capitalism is that you can choose. You can either contribute something of value to others and get something in return, something of equal value to your effort. This drives some to work harder, contribute more, grow and advance. Or you can go your own way, a higher risk but with greater personal gain if successful. In the two thousand years since the words "the meek shal inherit the Earth" were spoken it has yet to happen and likely never will.

Every artist who began a new style ran the risk of offending the sensitive and truth be told, most tried styles failed on their first display as did the artist. Yet some have become famous for their new and shocking styles and are remembered for them even today. It is when science is unbound by petty morality that the greatest leaps in knowledge are made. Why must the great be constrained by the small?

What seperates a man from a slave? Money? Power? No. A man chooses, a slave obeys.

The attempts are indeed "allowed through the institution of private property."

They're also "allowed" through the illegalization of private property. Or the "institution of public property." Attributing a specific thing (I OWN ALL TEH WATER!) to "private property" is just silly.

And even if imperfect, the attempts are still nonetheless capable of great damage. This is why sensible governments have instituted the practicality and law you cite in order to move society away from the apparent pure capitalist ideal.

Of course, governments are actually more capable than private entities of building huge, world-strangling monopolies... and fighting the wars and genocidal movements to maintain them. If I were like you I would say that Stalinism is thus the "pure socialist ideal" and I'd be just as right.

Communism.

Either that or everyone has to contribute and equal share or you'll have to reserve the right to deny those that do not contribute.Such a thing is not out of the question, but not doing so doesn't mean that nobody will contribute.

Both are evil when taken to extreme.

There has to be a balance as in all things.

I think that Lenin's NEP was a good sort of balance.

I think that Lenin's NEP was a good sort of balance.
I agree.

Neither. I support a free market. I suppose that could be capitalism, but in a drastically different sense than the corporate protectionism type of capitalism.

Rationalism - evidence based policies rather than just what someone thinks is a good idea or will get them votes.

Such a thing is not out of the question, but not doing so doesn't mean that nobody will contribute.
Denial of service for lack of contribution is capitalist. Under capitalism you can only get something out if you put something in. Those that don't contribute are not entitled to any share of the spoils of the system. If you don't bring the cherries you don't get any pie.

If America officially went socialist I'd advertise my parasitism just to tick people off and expose socialism for the failure that it is. If the government punished me for this it would prove that enforced egalitarianism and personal liberty are mutually exclusive.

Socialism
http://www.ackbar.org/images/ackbar.jpg
IT'S A TRAP!

Neither, beer, whiskey, vodka and gin. Also known as alcoholism.

Erm, a bit of both?

Denial of service for lack of contribution is capitalist.

No, it isn't. Private ownership of the means of production is capitalist.

It's perfectly possible to have a socialist system with an extensive incentives system based on contribution.

No, it isn't. Private ownership of the means of production is capitalist.
Yes, it is. If you can deny someone something then you have to own it and they what they must offer in exchange for the good or service you own and promise.

It's perfectly possible to have a socialist system with an extensive incentives system based on contribution.
Then what you'd get out would be tied to what you put in, not an equal share for all. That's capitalist.

I'm making border-line randroid statements and you seem to think they represent socialist ideals. About the only I haven't yet said is that selfishness is the highest good and altruism is the source of all evil. Were you skull-fucked by a nun?

How must I make it any clearer? Socialism is favored by moochers and looters, parasites who want to leech off the success of their betters. Capitalism is the opposite of this, it demands that those who wish to be great must work hard. Under capitalism a man can choose his place in society through his work. If you enforce charity then you take away the choice, if you force those who would be parasites to work for the whole you take away the choice. Capitalism is about a man being the sum of his work, each man owns his what he makes, what he does and is free to sell to whoever he wants for whatever price he wants. Socialism is about a man being a cog in a machine, each cog getting the same squirt of oil even if they perform no function, provide no benefit to the whole. If you force everyone to work then they become slaves, if you don't they become parasites. Socialism just can't win.

Neither. I support a free market. I suppose that could be capitalism, but in a drastically different sense than the corporate protectionism type of capitalism.

Socialism is a free market with support to the small busnisses while without support to the small busnisses suport then it will become a monoply and destroy the idea of a free market so socialism is more free market:cool:

Denial of service for lack of contribution is capitalist. Under capitalism you can only get something out if you put something in. Those that don't contribute are not entitled to any share of the spoils of the system.Capitialism isn't exactly geared toward giving people the best possible opportunity to contribute.

If America officially went socialist I'd advertise my parasitism just to tick people off and expose socialism for the failure that it is.If you wanna be a parasite, just become a business owner.

Yes, it is. If you can deny someone something then you have to own it

Yes, but this "owner" can be public or private.

Then what you'd get out would be tied to what you put in, not an equal share for all. That's capitalist.

"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it." - Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)

The crucial difference here is the owner--the people as a whole, or a small minority class of owners.

Now, Marx goes on to explain why this system is insufficient, and I find at least some of his points compelling... but it remains a plausible non-capitalist alternative.

I'm making border-line randroid statements and you seem to think they represent socialist ideals.

I objected to your characterization of socialism.

I said nothing about your ideals.

How must I make it any clearer?

You are being perfectly clear; propagandistic nonsense generally is.

This does not, however, much help your case.

Capitialism isn't exactly geared toward giving people the best possible opportunity to contribute.

Yes it does.

If you wanna be a parasite, just become a business owner.

Ya know, business owners don't sit around twiddling their thumbs all day. They actually earn their money (I know, I know, this comes as a shock to many of you socialist posters out there).

Yes it does.Really? So capitalism doesn't have an unemployment rate?

Ya know, business owners don't sit around twiddling their thumbs all day. They actually earn their money (I know, I know, this comes as a shock to many of you socialist posters out there).Really? 100% of the business owners work for their money? Absolutely none of them simply live off of the profit generated by the business?

If democracy is freedom but you say democracy should be limited then you are saying that freedom should be limited.


Your confusion stems from the fact that your strict intrepretation of "democracy" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13020862&postcount=8) is in fact strawman nonsense. Show me a single contemporary democracy that would allow an innocent person to be killed as a direct result of only a simple vote.


Let me ask you this, would you let two or more others decide every aspect of your entire life, make every choice for you?


Of course not. And I don't advocate any such thing. Where individuals have a collective stake in something, each individual should have an equal say. What an individual does where the stake is individual, is, of course, his or her personal business.


You should look in the mirror, you accuse me of being lop-sided in my rejection of state ownership and control but the only way that exploitation of a socialist system could be minimized is through a state.


It is entirely possible that I haven't been clear enough, so just allow me to say this:

I reject state ownership and control as well.

We agree on that. We recognize the danger and folly of exclusive ownership and control by the state. At most, I just want you to see the equal danger and folly of exclusive ownership and control by the anyone.


You can either contribute something of value to others and get something in return, something of equal value to your effort. This drives some to work harder, contribute more, grow and advance. Or you can go your own way, a higher risk but with greater personal gain if successful.


This is all a feature of competitive market enterprise. Which I think is a fantastic idea.

I think social ownership and control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Cooperative) can operate just fine within that context. Hell, it's proven fact. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13018470&postcount=99)


Why must the great be constrained by the small?


Because the great have the power, motive, and most to gain from constraining the small.

If I had to choose, capitalism.

Neither. I support a free market. I suppose that could be capitalism, but in a drastically different sense than the corporate protectionism type of capitalism.

(emphasis added by me)

Brilliant.

Quoted above is one of the type of Libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) (judging from the "Ron Paul '08" in the signature) who can willingly and logically separate the concepts of "free market" and "capitalism" in the mind.

I quit the Libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) scene myself when it became apparent that this type was becoming more rare and the apologists for the crony corporate war machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_administration) were becoming more common.

Alas, the days of the Libertarian Paradise and Libertarian Alliance regions (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Region) are long gone. Where have all the Libertarians gone, and were did all the damn Republicans come from?

Socialism is favored by moochers and looters, parasites who want to leech off the success of their betters. Capitalism is the opposite of this, it demands that those who wish to be great must work hard. Under capitalism a man can choose his place in society through his work.

Then, I guess that -let's say- Paris Hilton is the typical example of a hard worker, working a lot harder than a miner.

Capitalism... :p

Then, I guess that -let's say- Paris Hilton is the typical example of a hard worker, working a lot harder than a miner.

Capitalism... :p

Behold, the wonder of inheritance. A glorious practice whereby the sheer stupid luck of being born the child of a wealthy elite, while otherwise entirely useless, is somehow "hard work" that deserves "greatness" as its reward.

The rest of society rolled snake eyes and gets to work their asses off for 70 years until they can barely afford the bills for the hospice "home" in which they will shortly thereafter die. Where is their "greatness?"