NationStates Jolt Archive

I was having a "debate" (for lack of a better word) with my friend about the pros and cons of socialism vs. capitalism. I know that there was a thread "What's Wrong with Socialism?" a few months back, but my friend brought up some interesting issues that I haven't really thought about. A word about my friend, shes a conservative, but not religious (bordering on atheism), and is cynical of the national government (she wants to reduce government interference in people's lives). I'm para-phrasing her ideas, 'cause most of the "debate" took place on the subway.

1) Why should the (U.S.) government put taxes on corporations? The corporations are already being heavily taxed, and they'll just pass the extra costs down to the consumer.

2) A socialist government will tell people where they can work, how much money they can make, and regulate the shit out of everyone just to make everyone equal. (My friend came up with this situation where a socialist government will regulate sexual intercourse so that everyone is equal)

3) There is no economic crisis. It's just a fabrication of the media. (I forgot to ask clarification on *why* the media would do it, though I remember she said something about the "herd mentality")

Quite frankly, this has been debated to death on NSG. Also, your friend is nuts about everything about number one.

Oh, and I'm a Capitalist. Just goes to show how much division there is even between ideologies.

1) Why should the (U.S.) government put taxes on corporations? The corporations are already being heavily taxed, and they'll just pass the extra costs down to the consumer.
Because corporations are considered legally to be economic actors distinct from the people they're made up of. Since they then earn an income, they pay an income tax. And since charging normal income tax rates to corporations is counterproductive, they get charged a corporate income tax rate.

2) A socialist government will tell people where they can work, how much money they can make, and regulate the shit out of everyone just to make everyone equal. (My friend came up with this situation where a socialist government will regulate sexual intercourse so that everyone is equal)
That conflicts with the socialist idea of freedom, I'd say. It's not that socialists are anti-freedom and pro-regulation on principle - they just think that regulation and some sort of equality are necessary for everyone to be able to act truly as a free human being.

3) There is no economic crisis. It's just a fabrication of the media. (I forgot to ask clarification on *why* the media would do it, though I remember she said something about the "herd mentality")
She lives in NY and says that? I'm sorry but that's kinda stupid.

I'm a centrist myself. However your friend seems to be confusing socialism with something more along the lines of a totalitarian, socialist hybrid that puts even fascism to shame.

She's right about the corporate taxation. And although I wouldn't call it an economic crisis although the media has indeed made it worse. The media cries recession and people start selling causing a downward spiral of doom. If investors had ignored the media this probably would have ended by now. Or at least not gotten anywhere near as bad as it has gotten.

As long as it doesn't go into a depression we should be good. But the corporate bailouts are going to make things a lot worse in the long run. Perhaps even turn this into a crisis worthy of a depression. Bailing out failed businesses is rewarding failure. What happens when you reward failure? You fail some more. It will destroy the economy and bankrupt the federal government at the same time. Yea...that's smart.

That's my two cents.

If investors had ignored the media this probably would have ended by now. Or at least not gotten anywhere near as bad as it has gotten.
Wall Street doesn't sit there and watch news channels all day. They have their own sources, special news services, which basically talk nothing but numbers, or the effect of events on those numbers.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/SCOREBOARD-Bearish-backdrop-LKS9F?OpenDocument
Treasuries had a hard bid put on after those jobless figures, the curve bull flattened as the 2s slipped to 1.03 per cent (after briefly falling below 1 per cent) from 1.08 per cent and the 10s fell 14bps to 3.15 per cent – the lowest yield in about 50 years. The 5s were down about 8bps to 1.93 per cent. Aussie futures shot higher, the 3s up 11bps to 96.48, with the 10s up 12bps to 95.37. Looking at the short-end, the 3m t-bills are yielding 0.2 per cent while the 3m Libor edged lower to 2.15 per cent from 2.17 per cent.

There were some pretty big moves on the currencies as well, generally the US dollar and Japanese yen gaining over European currencies but the Australian dollar was hit, down to 0.6118 (after falling to 0.6350 by 1600 yesterday) as commodities tanked.

In other news, the SNB cut rates by 100bps in its third inter-meeting move, to a range of between 0.5 per cent and 1.5 per cent, suggesting that falling commodity prices could see inflation below 2 per cent perhaps by the end of the year.

That's the sort of thing bond traders work on for example. You can talk about herd mentality, hormones and all the rest of it, but blaming "the media" for Wall Street behaviour is probably missing the mark. You can blame it for contributing to make people save rather than spend in the real economy, but even that relationship is mediated by the actual, physical incentives to do so - people may lose their jobs, are watching the equity in their homes disappear, can't get finance for anything anymore. Is it really better for the media to keep people in a sense of security in such a situation until they suddenly find themselves out on the street?

No you're right about that one. (Warning would be investors to stay out of the market) But the mainstream media tends to sensationalize things. And selling always without fail makes the matter worse. Its a give and take scenario some win and some lose. Its all about timing at luck of the draw. I'll admit I have no idea just how much of an impact the media had but it didn't help matters that's for sure.

True Socialism is incompatible with a multi democratic party capitalist system of government.

Socialism in theory is the most nicest fairest system in the world. The problem is once all the economic means of production, all social organizations is in the hands of the government. There can be no opposition towards anything. In effect creating an automatic dictatorship government.

The democratic European socialist nations like sweeden can work with a multi political party sytem of government. Because the means of economic production are still in private and government hands. Social organizations can be private. They rely more on taxes for economic and social programs then a government owned and runned society. Which some would call social welfare.

I've been saying it all along, Feudalism FTW...now get back to your fields peasants!

I've been saying it all along, Feudalism FTW...now get back to your fields peasants!

Yes... Modern Feudalism... *imagines hundreds of petty lords nuking each other*

I was having a "debate" (for lack of a better word) with my friend about the pros and cons of socialism vs. capitalism. I know that there was a thread "What's Wrong with Socialism?" a few months back, but my friend brought up some interesting issues that I haven't really thought about. A word about my friend, shes a conservative, but not religious (bordering on atheism), and is cynical of the national government (she wants to reduce government interference in people's lives). I'm para-phrasing her ideas, 'cause most of the "debate" took place on the subway.

1) Why should the (U.S.) government put taxes on corporations? The corporations are already being heavily taxed, and they'll just pass the extra costs down to the consumer.

2) A socialist government will tell people where they can work, how much money they can make, and regulate the shit out of everyone just to make everyone equal. (My friend came up with this situation where a socialist government will regulate sexual intercourse so that everyone is equal)

3) There is no economic crisis. It's just a fabrication of the media. (I forgot to ask clarification on *why* the media would do it, though I remember she said something about the "herd mentality")

One of the problems with the whole structure of your debate on the subject is that you're debating about something without defining your terms. In modern discourse, socialism and capitalism have become anti-concepts. They're nothing more than convenient labels placed in a false-dichotomy.

Particularly in American discourse, socialism is the Great Satan. The concept of socialism has been reduced to a mere reduction to everything that happened in the Soviet Union. And anything that deviates from the pro-business, relatively free-market status-quo. Thus you have people tell you with a straight face that the difference between capitalism and socialism is a top marginal tax rate of 39 percent as opposed to 35 percent.

Before you continue these debates, ask yourself this: what are the defining features of capitalism? Find them all, because the debate will be a farce unless you understand what defines capitalism. You will have way of comparing it to any definition of socialism.

As for socialism, personally I think that the phrase "socialist government" is an oxymoron. At its core, socialism is about fixing ending the alienation and exploitation that exists in the capitalist social contract. You can't do that by having the State be the owner of capital. The workers themselves have to control their workplaces. But that's just my opinion, and I'm sure you'll find plenty of socialists who disagree with me.

I was having a "debate" (for lack of a better word) with my friend about the pros and cons of socialism vs. capitalism. I know that there was a thread "What's Wrong with Socialism?" a few months back, but my friend brought up some interesting issues that I haven't really thought about. A word about my friend, shes a conservative, but not religious (bordering on atheism), and is cynical of the national government (she wants to reduce government interference in people's lives). I'm para-phrasing her ideas, 'cause most of the "debate" took place on the subway.

1) Why should the (U.S.) government put taxes on corporations? The corporations are already being heavily taxed, and they'll just pass the extra costs down to the consumer.

2) A socialist government will tell people where they can work, how much money they can make, and regulate the shit out of everyone just to make everyone equal. (My friend came up with this situation where a socialist government will regulate sexual intercourse so that everyone is equal)

3) There is no economic crisis. It's just a fabrication of the media. (I forgot to ask clarification on *why* the media would do it, though I remember she said something about the "herd mentality")

1. Because Corporations require state services, such as military protection, fire protection, police protection, etc. Why should I pay for Microsoft to be protected by the US Navy? And trust me, Microsoft needs that protection a lot more then I do.

2. A socialist government cannot tell people where they can work. No government can do that, unless it's a ruthless dictatorship. You can school people for certain areas, but you cannot say to a person: "you are working in a trash factory". Where in the World did your friend get that one from? Also, Talented Utopianism, the economic principles I follow, is a spin off of Socialism, which gives Talented people more oppurtunities then non-Talented people, ergo by definition everyone cannot be equal. It's equality of oppurtunity vs. equality of outcome. No system can ever have a pure equality of outcome. No way is Angelina Jolie having sex with Michael Moore or Bill O'Reilly. That's a very warped view of Socialism, would can probably even make Karl Marx shiver.

3. Tell that to Fordasaurus, Chryslesaurus and General Mammoth. Does your friend pay any attention to 401ks? Maybe she should check out how badly stocks fell. You know, more then half of the population losing half of their pensions, that's not your average economic cycle. Is your friend Ann Coulter or Sarah Palin?

The problem with socialism is that the foundation is on the violent seizure of property from one person and transferring it to another. It is a philosophy based on plunder. You can dress it up with fancy rhetoric, but it boils down to taking property by force.

The problem with socialism is that the foundation is on the violent seizure of property from one person and transferring it to another. It is a philosophy based on plunder. You can dress it up with fancy rhetoric, but it boils down to taking property by force.

Utter nonsense. Property is a social construct, not an innate right. Property only exists because there is a body with a monopoly of legitimate force to define it.

Under capitalist systems, the working class are regarded as commodities not as first-class citizens.

The problem with socialism is that the foundation is on the violent seizure of property from one person and transferring it to another. It is a philosophy based on plunder. You can dress it up with fancy rhetoric, but it boils down to taking property by force.

Are you aware of Eminent Domain? It exists in all Capitalist Societies. It's where the Government takes your property and pays you the "market price" that is determined by the government!!! Although the siezure isn't violent, you have a very friendly Marshall with a gun escorting you out of your house and even giving you a ride to the end of city limits. Tasers and guns have never been used. Except in those few cases, where the "suspect" aka owner, also had a weapon, like a fork.

Under capitalist systems, the working class are regarded as commodities not as first-class citizens.

And under socialism, everybody is regarded as a commodity. Sort of the drawback of such a system...I mean, no capitalist state has ever had to build walls to keep its people in. The irony is, the socialist states of the 20th century had universally higher levels of income inequality and real poverty compared to their capitalist rivals.

And under socialism, everybody is regarded as a commodity. Sort of the drawback of such a system...I mean, no capitalist state has ever had to build walls to keep its people in. The irony is, the socialist states of the 20th century had universally higher levels of income inequality and real poverty compared to their capitalist rivals.

Counting the ex-Imperialized African countries living under Capitalism?

Counting the ex-Imperialized African countries living under Capitalism?

No, just like I wouldn't count developing Communist states in those regions; the dynamic is just that much different that it's not valid to compare them with the developed states in both camps. That being said, a lot of them didn't even have the kind or extent of border controls and internal passports common to the Eastern Bloc.

No, just like I wouldn't count developing Communist states in those regions; the dynamic is just that much different that it's not valid to compare them with the developed states in both camps. That being said, a lot of them didn't even have the kind or extent of border controls and internal passports common to the Eastern Bloc.

Just to play devils advocate, but but the USSR was for most of its history a "developing nation". Until the stagnation under Brezhnev, it was making considerable material progress, and was rapidly catching up to the West.

The only "developed" Eastern bloc nation was East Germany, and I think it would probably would be a better comparison to compare the economic status of East Germany to West Germany, since both incurred a roughly equivalent level devastation during World War II.

The only "developed" Eastern bloc nation was East Germany, and I think it would probably would be a better comparison to compare the economic status of East Germany to West Germany, since both incurred a roughly equivalent level devastation during World War II.
In the GDR as much as in other countries, there was a pretty strong correlation between the degree of decentralisation in the economy and its performance. To the extent that the GDR was less rigidly controlled than some other communist countries, I think that explains a lot of its supposedly good performance. Which was still pretty crappy.

In the GDR as much as in other countries, there was a pretty strong correlation between the degree of decentralisation in the economy and its performance. To the extent that the GDR was less rigidly controlled than some other communist countries, I think that explains a lot of its supposedly good performance. Which was still pretty crappy.

In Finland, we always refer to GDR as ''DDR''. If we would do the American way of refering to it, it would be SDT, Saksan Demokraattinen Tasavalta.

She lives in NY and says that? I'm sorry but that's kinda stupid.

Statements such as those usually are generated by the abuse of substances or a mental disorder. She probably also believes in the Illuminati.

In a capitalist nation, you have to pay tolls to use any roads you drive over and sidewalks you walk over. You have to pay the police to report a crime, and you have to pay for any work done in solving the crime, and bringing justice. Service to the customer is not the top priority, profits are, and when the aquisition of profits comes into conflict with offering the customer the best service, profits will take priority, and the customer (in this case, the population) will be screwed over. You will have to pay whatever schools want to charge for your childs education. If your house gets on fire, you have to pay whatever the fire department wants to charge to put out the fire. If you get hit by an ambulance, you won't recieve any medical attention until it is determined that you can pay for it.

See? I can make sweeping generalisations about a particular economic philosophy too!

I was having a "debate" (for lack of a better word) with my friend about the pros and cons of socialism vs. capitalism. I know that there was a thread "What's Wrong with Socialism?" a few months back, but my friend brought up some interesting issues that I haven't really thought about. A word about my friend, shes a conservative, but not religious (bordering on atheism), and is cynical of the national government (she wants to reduce government interference in people's lives). I'm para-phrasing her ideas, 'cause most of the "debate" took place on the subway.

1) Why should the (U.S.) government put taxes on corporations? The corporations are already being heavily taxed, and they'll just pass the extra costs down to the consumer.

2) A socialist government will tell people where they can work, how much money they can make, and regulate the shit out of everyone just to make everyone equal. (My friend came up with this situation where a socialist government will regulate sexual intercourse so that everyone is equal)

3) There is no economic crisis. It's just a fabrication of the media. (I forgot to ask clarification on *why* the media would do it, though I remember she said something about the "herd mentality")

You are not debating the merits of socialism vs. capitalism, you are debating the merits of state manipulation of markets vs. free markets.

In socialism, The True socialism, Everyone gets the same amount of money, no matter how hard they work. Lets say bill works 10 hours a day for $100, and bob works 4 hours a day, for 100$ as well. Something seems wrong here. And if you don't like it, thats where communism takes over, and forces you to do it, or you get shot. Thats why most socialist nations have large militaries, mostly to control their disgruntled people, and i'm talking about hardcore socialism, not mixed socialism, like we see in Europe and Canada.

In capitalism, people are free to apply for whatever job they want, or even open their own businesses. True Capitalism, calls for the harder working induvidual to get more money. This system however, does not favor the lazy or handicapped, and without some aspects of socialism(unions) could lead to very poor worker conditions(and thus, a workers revolution)

Both True Capitalism, and Socialism are flawed, and have negative effects on the workers. Thats why I believe a mixed system, with The opportunities, and ability to become rich of capitalism, and the worker protection of socialism.

You are not debating the merits of socialism vs. capitalism, you are debating the merits of state manipulation of markets vs. free markets.

Sorry, I just wanted to get these issues my friend brought up out of the way.
What I really want to know is whether I have a decent knowledge of the way capitalism and socialism works. I've read some parts of Jennifer Government, which I know has a pretty extreme application of capitalism.

I do know that capitalism advocates privatization on a general basis, which would (in theory) lead to better progress because of competition. But then, IMO, that would undermine the government, causing a power vacuum that the corporations would fill. Privatization would ultimately label customers based on their income, and how much profit can be derived from the customers. Of course, customers don't have any power against corporations because corporations have an obligation to stock owners and profits, not to the welfare of the people. Because of this, I reject capitalism in favor of socialism.

My understanding of socialism is that the government regulates businesses while maintaining its own businesses under the same regulations, a mixed a economy of private and state-owned enterprises. Institutions such as postal service, law enforcement, and fire services show that the government does a competent job of using taxpayer money to provide a service. The government is a regular influence in people's lives, but doesn't interfere with their personal lives (such as Prop. 8). I believe in Locke's social contract, so in the event a government starts to stray from the interests of its citizens, the citizens have a right to overthrow the administration. This is in contrast to capitalism, where corporations cannot uphold the welfare of the people because privatization is about competing for the most success and profits.

In socialism, The True socialism, Everyone gets the same amount of money, no matter how hard they work.
Not necesarily. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" doesn't suggest complete equality in pay. On the contrary, in fact. If one needs an expensive medical treatment, then it the socialist state would expend greater resources on yourself than your unsick neighbour.

Public ownership of the means of production does not equate to uniform equality (and, arguably, does not equate to complete removal of division of labour, etc.; but that's another issue).

Furthermore, many socialists would argue that socialism cannot be acheived while money is still in use, or that a socialist society that still uses money is not a 'true' socialist state.

In socialism, The True socialism, Everyone gets the same amount of money, no matter how hard they work. Lets say bill works 10 hours a day for $100, and bob works 4 hours a day, for 100$ as well. Something seems wrong here.

Indeed. Which is why the state would go to Bob and ask him which part of "From each according to his abilities" he did not understand.

Unless Bob is handicapped of course. Or obese - in which case he would even get 2 seats on a plane ;)

Indeed. Which is why the state would go to Bob and ask him which part of "From each according to his abilities" he did not understand.
Aye. Someone's missing the point of the labour theory of value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value). In reply to Augmark (and assuming this hypothetical socialist state still used money), Bill would be payed the equivalent of 10 hours labour, and Bob the equivialent of 4 hours labour.

A woeful misunderstanding of the principle tenets of socialism does not mean socialism is necessarily a poor economic policy.

Utter nonsense. Property is a social construct, not an innate right. Property only exists because there is a body with a monopoly of legitimate force to define it.

What would you say if I told you that all rights are social constructs?

What would you say if I told you that all rights are social constructs?
I don't know about Trots, but I'd agree with you fully. (I'd imagine he would too.)

I don't know about Trots, but I'd agree with you fully. (I'd imagine he would too.)

Right, so that means that property rights are at least no less legitimate ontologically speaking than, say, the right to free speech. So in the same way, one could argue that seizing and redistributing property is of the same value as blocking freedom of speech.

Right, so that means that property rights are at least no less legitimate ontologically speaking than, say, the right to free speech.
I was more getting at the limitations of rights in general. Following Marx, I'd say a socialist state would guarentee social justice through a medium not involving rights.

I'm saying (and many socialists would say) that rights are a social construct, and that they are a poor social construct that should be discarded.

I was more getting at the limitations of rights in general. Following Marx, I'd say a socialist state would guarentee social justice through a medium not involving rights.

I'm saying (and many socialists would say) that rights are a social construct, and that they are a poor social construct that should be discarded.

But isn't the disregard of rights in a social construct system a very dangerous and vulnerable system to have? It seems to end up with the suppressions of freedoms of certain people, as a means to an end to achieve pure equality (class warfare).

I'm saying (and many socialists would say) that rights are a social construct, and that they are a poor social construct that should be discarded.
No more free speech then?

But isn't the disregard of rights in a social construct system a very dangerous and vulnerable system to have? It seems to end up with the suppressions of freedoms of certain people, as a means to an end to achieve pure equality (class warfare).
Only if you believe rights are necessary to social justice.

I'm not saying that I disregard rights, i.e. that I think people should be abused in ways that breach, say, the UNCHR, I'm saying rights are a poor way of going about social justice. Ignoring the issues of 'where' rights come from, rights seem to me an incredibly limiting method of improving living conditions. For a start, they're culturally-specific; they originate in the Western philosophical tradition, and only make sense if you believe in a generally Western conception of the self. Moreover, and this is Marx's criticism, it's all well and good having rights that 'guarentee' social justice and equality, but in practice we find bodies defining what human has what rights, and get into all sort of mischeif when we discuss non-'standard' humans.

Finally, the worshipping of rights lead to some bizarre consequences (see the Fat People on a Plane (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14239111#post14239111) thread, for example) and very, very strange talk. The West's conception and implementation of rights is out of hand at the moment. I believe we're framing much moral discussion in terms (rights) that simply don't make any practical sense.

I should treat you in a good manner because it's a humane thing to do, not because I have a duty to uphold.



No more free speech then?
Are you only able to speak freely if your covered by a right?

Once you leave the Earth's atmosphere, the domain of the UNCHR, do you suddenly become unable to speak freely?

It's this moral panic I'm describing; the (rather ingrained notion) that without a right, there can be no possibility of any justice whatsoever.

Only if you believe rights are necessary to social justice.

I'm not saying that I disregard rights, i.e. that I think people should be abused in ways that breach, say, the UNCHR, I'm saying rights are a poor way of going about social justice.

Yet, historically speaking, a Marxist approach has been pretty poor at that also.


Ignoring the issues of 'where' rights come from, rights seem to me an incredibly limiting method of improving living conditions.

I don't understand how this can be true, unless you think the only way to improve living conditions is to disregard certain rights. Do you think this is true?


For a start, they're culturally-specific; they originate in the Western philosophical tradition, and only make sense if you believe in a generally Western conception of the self. Moreover, and this is Marx's criticism, it's all well and good having rights that 'guarentee' social justice and equality, but in practice we find bodies defining what human has what rights, and get into all sort of mischeif when we discuss non-'standard' humans.


Do you really want me to go into what happens in practice when a country tries a Marxist approach?


Finally, the worshipping of rights lead to some bizarre consequences (see the Fat People on a Plane (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14239111#post14239111) thread, for example) and very, very strange talk. The West's conception and implementation of rights is out of hand at the moment. I believe we're framing much moral discussion in terms (rights) that simply don't make any practical sense.


I agree with this, we need to be pragmatic, and not treat rights as scriptural truth.


I should treat you in a good manner because it's a humane thing to do, not because I have a duty to uphold.


Do we have a duty to be humane?

Are you only able to speak freely if your covered by a right?

Once you leave the Earth's atmosphere, the domain of the UNCHR, do you suddenly become unable to speak freely?

It's this moral panic I'm describing; the (rather ingrained notion) that without a right, there can be no possibility of any justice whatsoever.Let's call it a 'sock' then, in stead of a right. Does it change anything? It's not about the name but about it's meaning.

What are we debating anyway? I just dropped in here.:tongue:

Yet, historically speaking, a Marxist approach has been pretty poor at that also.
Although there has not been a state in existence I'd call truly 'Marxist', I'd agree that a communist state, as briefly outlined by Marx in The German Ideology and elsewhere, wouldn't be entirely conducive to complete social equality.

However, that doesn't mean that Marx's criticisms of rights-based appraoches are invalid.

I don't understand how this can be true, unless you think the only way to improve living conditions is to disregard certain rights. Do you think this is true?
I don't see why you need to frame the issue in terms of 'disregarding' rights, as if I don't care for people's welfare. It's like me saying I don't think a certain road is a good way of getting to London, and you saying, 'oh, but why don't you want to go to London?'.


Do you really want me to go into what happens in practice when a country tries a Marxist approach?
Sure. I'm no Marxist.

But you'll have to create such a state first, as there has never been a state which clearly followed Marxist principles. Strange offshoots of certain aspects of Marxist thought, yes. But a communist state? No.

Do we have a duty to be humane?
I don't believe that obligation, in general, is a good way of thinking about morals, so to me the question is moot.

I broadly think a good human treats other humans in ways conducive to socialbility and communal living, and duty doesn't need to come into it.

I don't really want to debate whether there has really been a true Marxist state, so I'll just leave things about that for now.


I don't see why you need to frame the issue in terms of 'disregarding' rights, as if I don't care for people's welfare. It's like me saying I don't think a certain road is a good way of getting to London, and you saying, 'oh, but why don't you want to go to London?'.


Well, you said rights are too much of a limitation on improving welfare. In what way is this true? Which rights limit improvement in living conditions?

I was having a "debate" (for lack of a better word) with my friend about the pros and cons of socialism vs. capitalism. I know that there was a thread "What's Wrong with Socialism?" a few months back, but my friend brought up some interesting issues that I haven't really thought about. A word about my friend, shes a conservative, but not religious (bordering on atheism), and is cynical of the national government (she wants to reduce government interference in people's lives). I'm para-phrasing her ideas, 'cause most of the "debate" took place on the subway.

1) Why should the (U.S.) government put taxes on corporations? The corporations are already being heavily taxed, and they'll just pass the extra costs down to the consumer.

2) A socialist government will tell people where they can work, how much money they can make, and regulate the shit out of everyone just to make everyone equal. (My friend came up with this situation where a socialist government will regulate sexual intercourse so that everyone is equal)

3) There is no economic crisis. It's just a fabrication of the media. (I forgot to ask clarification on *why* the media would do it, though I remember she said something about the "herd mentality")
1) Perhaps the higher prices might discourage people from over-consumption. Though I think taxes should be more so on sales than on income...

2) Maybe with a full-blown communist society, but not with a mixed-economy society that has a blend of capitalism and socialism and certain standards of permissiveness.

3) I wouldn't be too surprised if for-profit media might exaggerate it a bit to get more ratings.

Are you only able to speak freely if your covered by a right?
Certainly not, but being covered by Rights prevents a "Might makes Right" system from being legit in taking away your rights. It doesn't prevent a system from taking place, per se, but gives the international community and the resistance against it legimate reasoning to oppose such a system.


Once you leave the Earth's atmosphere, the domain of the UNCHR, do you suddenly become unable to speak freely?
In a sense, it's not that you become unable to speak freely if not covered by rights, but it's simply that it becomes a whole lot easier for others (who's intentions are not as pure and good as yours) to oppress you and said rights.

Capisce?

I don't really want to debate whether there has really been a true Marxist state, so I'll just leave things about that for now.
Meh.

Read what Marx wrote. Look at 'communist' states. The two simply don't gel.

Well, you said rights are too much of a limitation on improving welfare. In what way is this true? Which rights limit improvement in living conditions?
I'm not saying specific rights limit welfare, many rights have good effects, but rights-based ethical theories, I believe, limit us in our ethical treatment of the disabled, children, nonhuman animals, and those who fall outside the 'zone' of rights.

Moreover, rights aren't universal; in the sense that they're incredibly culturally-specific, and I believe there's better ways of universalising justice.



Certainly not, but being covered by Rights prevents a "Might makes Right" system from being legit in taking away your rights.
Previous years experinece of the citizens of the UK, US and other rights-based legal systems would say otherwise.

In a sense, it's not that you become unable to speak freely if not covered by rights, but it's simply that it becomes a whole lot easier for others (who's intentions are not as pure and good as yours) to oppress you and said rights.
Firstly, I'd contend the (implied) notion that rights are the only method to prevent such oppression.

Secondly, I dont thik rights are a fantastic way of preventing oppression. Once again, let's look at the perfectly legitimate (under rights-based theory) removal of rights from Western citizens, 'enemy combatants', etc.

Are you only able to speak freely if your covered by a right?

Once you leave the Earth's atmosphere, the domain of the UNCHR, do you suddenly become unable to speak freely?

This is why many believe in natural rights that are just a part of being human. Things like the Magna Carta, the US Constitution, and the UNCHR don't give rights, they just list them as a set of rules to follow. I'll agree that sometimes these lists of rights are contradictory, so the lists can be flawed. But that doesn't mean that the rights themselves don't exist.

This is why many believe in natural rights that are just a part of being human. Things like the Magna Carta, the US Constitution, and the UNCHR don't give rights, they just list them as a set of rules to follow.
Then who or what 'gives' these natural rights?

Unless you believe there's some bearded dude in the sky handing out rights, it's ahrd to see where they come from.

Meh.

Read what Marx wrote. Look at 'communist' states. The two simply don't gel.


Not purely, but then no theory is ever followed purely. For instance, Lenin was clearly a very great Marxist scholar, who understood him well. I think, at least the early USSR, was quite clearly based on Marxists principles, at least as much as the US is based on capitalist principles, even if it wasn't purely applying the theory.


I'm not saying specific rights limit welfare, many rights have good effects, but rights-based ethical theories, I believe, limit us in our ethical treatment of the disabled, children, nonhuman animals, and those who fall outside the 'zone' of rights.


But can't you just easily solve this by adding more rights, and saying when these rights conflict, one right has precedence. For instance, the right for an obese man to not be discriminated against or whatever, is greater than the right the airline company has to charge per seat, thus the Obese man should not have to pay for two seats.


Moreover, rights aren't universal; in the sense that they're incredibly culturally-specific, and I believe there's better ways of universalising justice.

Such as?

You're all evil communists. Time cube is the only truth. (http://www.timecube.com/)

Then who or what 'gives' these natural rights?

Unless you believe there's some bearded dude in the sky handing out rights, it's ahrd to see where they come from.

The same who or what that gave you a brain capable of rational thought.

You're all evil communists. Time cube is the only truth. (http://www.timecube.com/)

Ahh, that fucking site again. It gives me a headache, it's just hundreds of paragraphs of WTF!?

Not purely, but then no theory is ever followed purely. For instance, Lenin was clearly a very great Marxist scholar, who understood him well. I think, at least the early USSR, was quite clearly based on Marxists principles, at least as much as the US is based on capitalist principles, even if it wasn't purely applying the theory.
The USSR never was, and never claimed to be, a communist state. I'd contend the notion that Lenin understood Marx well; he certainly seems to be oblivious to many of Marx's notions of proletarian rule, alienation theory, and suchlike. Lenin was good at taking certain (economic) aspects of Marx and drastically altering them, and to say that the 20th century Soviet states were an example of Marxism in practice is just obviously wrong if you've studied Marx in any detail.


But can't you just easily solve this by adding more rights, and saying when these rights conflict, one right has precedence. For instance, the right for an obese man to not be discriminated against or whatever, is greater than the right the airline company has to charge per seat, thus the Obese man should not have to pay for two seats.
Then we're instantly in hot water.

We can't say that an obese person cannot be discriminated against at all, because there are clearly situations where it's perfectly legitimate to discriminate against obese people. So we're reduced to doing what the SCoC has done, and make the bizarre move of creating a positive right for a fat man to sit in two chairs.

Such as?
I'd (hesitantly) posit a virtue-based ethic of justice.



The same who or what that gave you a brain capable of rational thought.
That's not very helpful for those of us who don't believe in a deity.


EDIT: I'm off, got a dissertation to get on with. But I'll check up on this thread later.

The same who or what that gave you a brain capable of rational thought.
Billions of years of evolutionary history?

Ahh, that fucking site again. It gives me a headache, it's just hundreds of paragraphs of WTF!?

It seemed bizarrely appropriate for this thread, probably because I'm working on a paper regarding the relationship between federal farming subsidies and support for biomass energy, with a special focus on ethanol.

Whenever I see it, something tells me that it would be appropriate to go into an epileptic seizure.

Billions of years of evolutionary history?

Sure, why not? I would say that if I built an A.I. capable of rational thought, it would have rights.

The USSR never was, and never claimed to be, a communist state. I'd contend the notion that Lenin understood Marx well; he certainly seems to be oblivious to many of Marx's notions of proletarian rule, alienation theory, and suchlike. Lenin was good at taking certain (economic) aspects of Marx and drastically altering them, and to say that the 20th century Soviet states were an example of Marxism in practice is just obviously wrong if you've studied Marx in any detail.


Lenin was clearly a Marxist, but he was a bit of a pragmatist also. When he saw the sheer failure of war communism, he had to implement the NEP (one of the major arguments against Lenin being a Marxist), otherwise there would be even worse mass poverty and starvation in Russia. Lenin does differ from Marx towards economics, but they're not extremely substantial differences, the main difference is Lenin's belief that you could simply skip the bourgeois revolution and transform from essentially industrialised feudalism to socialism, bypassing the welfare capitalist stage. Anyway, there are other places. What about the communes set up during the Spanish revolution?


Then we're instantly in hot water.

We can't say that an obese person cannot be discriminated against at all, because there are clearly situations where it's perfectly legitimate to discriminate against obese people. So we're reduced to doing what the SCoC has done, and make the bizarre move of creating a positive right for a fat man to sit in two chairs.


Well if you look at the thread, it's about the positive right to transportation, there was never any mention of an actual positive right to sit on two chairs. Regardless, to put it more appropriately, issues like this are solved by a rigorous and consistent legal system.


I'd (hesitantly) posit a virtue-based ethic of justice.


I don't really like virtue ethics (though I'm kind of biased, because I found the topic slightly dull). I feel it's a little wishy washy, and don't think it can be easily applied to real life situations.

You're all evil communists. Time cube is the only truth. (http://www.timecube.com/)

I skimmed through the first page, and was about ready kill myself.

Then I discovered that there's a second page...

What in Satan's Glorious Name is that guy smoking?

I skimmed through the first page, and was about ready kill myself.

Then I discovered that there's a second page...

What in Satan's Glorious Name is that guy smoking?

Your guess is as good as mine, but I kind of want to try it. The grammar is so astonishingly creative, that it appears to be translated directly from English into Finnish, then back into English by someone who speaks only Mongolian. And that's not even looking at the ideas he's espousing.

It's all in the cubes, man *takes drag*

Capatilism is the superior form because history has proven its past that socialism does not work. In the case of extreme socialism with Joseph Stalin, he would put his farmers in a ditch, if they didn't give up their crops to be distrubuted evenly throughout Soviet Russia. Socialism does not fit the needs of people, Capitalism does. History has proven it's past, and Socialism without a doubt, does not work.

The drive to succeed as an individual is the strongest motivating factor a human being can feel in their work. When work is uncoupled from reward, or when an artificial safety net provides a high standard of living for those who don’t work hard, society suffers. The fact that individuals are driven to succeed is in all our interests.

The guiding hand of government is too strong in a socialist system; it means that change is slow – which means that innovation is missed. This isn’t just pro-business, it has real effects on the lives of citizens - people are poorer because of it. In a capitalist system, economies are diverse enough that when problems happen in one sector, others are often insulated by their differences. In a socialist system, where everything is centrally controlled and diversity is non-existent, when government gets things wrong, everyone suffers. Ultimately, socialist systems are so inefficient and corrupt that labour has to be forced for the state to continue functioning (though this may also be a logical outcome of thinking less of the importance of individual freedoms compared to some abstract communal good). The failure of the USSR and other command economies shows the poverty of socialism and the failure of central planning, as on a smaller scale does the failure of nationalised industries in many western countries.

Competition yields better products and more efficient processes in all fields of man's activity. Whilst it is true that monopolies sometimes form, these are combated by regulatory methods like monopolies commissions (witness attempts to break up Microsoft, or regulators forbidding the merger of some airlines on competition grounds). So capitalism actively tries to stop monopolies. On the other hand, monopolies are inevitably a part of every aspect of activity in socialist systems - the monopoly of the state.

In capitalist systems, society is ruled by the individual. Who would want to live any other way? In socialist systems, society is ruled by the state. Why would one want to live like that?

Lenin does differ from Marx towards economics, but they're not extremely substantial differences, the main difference is Lenin's belief that you could simply skip the bourgeois revolution and transform from essentially industrialised feudalism to socialism, bypassing the welfare capitalist stage.
So, no "extremely substantial differences" except that Lenin rejects one of the fundemental tenets of Marxist thinking, abandoning Marx's historical, economic and social theories?

Seriously, if you haven't already, read Marx's 1844 Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, The German Ideology and the introduction to Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (all of which are relatively short, and can be easily found online), compare them to Leninist or Stalinist theory and practice, and you'll soon see how different the three lines of thought are.

Anyway, there are other places. What about the communes set up during the Spanish revolution?
They weren't socialist states, and, largely, weren't Marxist in nature. Most, IIRC, were Stalinist or anarchist.

Well if you look at the thread, it's about the positive right to transportation, there was never any mention of an actual positive right to sit on two chairs...
...apart from the Supreme Court of Canada ruling as such.

I don't really like virtue ethics (though I'm kind of biased, because I found the topic slightly dull). I feel it's a little wishy washy, and don't think it can be easily applied to real life situations.
It's true that there hasn't been a great deal of work on 'Virtue Politics', but in the last ten years or so there's been a sudden influx of virtue ethicists turning their attention to applied ethics.

Martha Nussbaums recent book Frontiers of Justice does exactly that; discussing the limts of rights-based and social contract-based ethics in the areas of disability, female emancipation and welfare of nonhuman animals, advocating a virtue-based political philosophy. Further, Rebecca Walker and Philip Ivanhoe's Working Virtue, published last year, is a large anthology dealing with virtue-based appproaches to (among other topics) bioethics, jurisprudence, familial ethics and interpersonal ethics.

Add to that influential books by Rosalind Hursthouse, Philippa Foot, Christine Swanton and others, and you can see a burgeoning political virtue ethics.



Capatilism is the superior form because history has proven its past that socialism does not work.
Well, in that case, why did we ever move from tribalism?

After all, when there were no feudal states (never mind capitalist ones) in existence, history had 'proven' tribalism to be superior. Those who believe socialism was 'proven' to be 'wrong' by the USSR, or that socialism will 'never work', are as confused and dogmatic as those Marxists who suppose communism is inevitable.

Furthermore, if you, or anybody else, can enlighten me by explaning why a country with massive division of labour, alienation from labour, product, person and nature, and distinct inequalities in wealth is somehow 'socialist', I'd be bloody amazed.

Well, in that case, why did we ever move from tribalism?


The difference is that we have had both capatilist and socialist systems and the capatilist ones have succeded.

The difference is that we have had both capatilist and socialist systems and the capatilist ones have succeded.
Which socialist systems?

Sweden?

Which socialist systems?

Sweden?

Countries that have declared to be socialist:

Russia, China, Somalia, Libya, North Korea, do I need to go on?

Competition yields better products and more efficient processes in all fields of man's activity. Whilst it is true that monopolies sometimes form, these are combated by regulatory methods like monopolies commissions (witness attempts to break up Microsoft, or regulators forbidding the merger of some airlines on competition grounds). So capitalism actively tries to stop monopolies. On the other hand, monopolies are inevitably a part of every aspect of activity in socialist systems - the monopoly of the state.

Competition can't apply to everything, and even then will not necessarily lead to better products/services. The primary objective of capitalism is to compete for profits and success, and in that respect people become customers classified according to income, and totally marginalizing people with limited means of income. Unlike in socialism, where people are relatively equal in terms of opportunity.


In capitalist systems, society is ruled by the individual. Who would want to live any other way? In socialist systems, society is ruled by the state. Why would one want to live like that?

I was under the impression that corporations ultimately rule society, based on the fact that corporations will hold more power than the people, who are entirely dependent on the products of the corporations. Not exactly rule by the individual.

No matter what anyone says, there will always be an entity that will interfere in people's lives, be it state government, corporations, or the anally-probing extra-terrestrial masters of the void. So when it comes down to it, I'd personally prefer state government on the basis of the social contract. Because at least the people have some semblance of power against the government

Countries that have declared to be socialist:

Russia, China, Somalia, Libya, North Korea, do I need to go on?
I'm afraid you'll have to.

For a start, Russia has either been a monarchy or a Presidential free-market state. The USSR, not Russia, claimed to be socialist, but it's a rather strange varient of socialism, and certainly not a Marxist state (indeed, the idea of a Marxist or communist state is an oxymoron; communism is stateless).

Similarly with the PRC. It was/is a Maoist state (though it hasn't been strictly Moaist for some time now).

Somalia, Libya and North Korea are, to anyone with the faintest sliver of political knowledge, decidedly not socialist; unless we're now going to label any old state in which an authoritarian leader owns the means of production 'socialist'. Heck, Somalia is barely a state at the moment, never mind a socialist one.

There's plenty of states around the world that, as of now, have implemented certain ideals that socialists uphold - nationalisation of industries, the welfare system, etc., - but very few, if any states can be correctly called socialist, and none can (or ever will be; see above) be called communist.

EDIT: As to whether Marx's definitions and methodology are correct, or can ever be proven, that's an entirely different matter. As I've said above, I'm no Marxist, but attempting to show Marxism to be nonsense by holding up a non-Marxist state is simply poor argumentation.

So, no "extremely substantial differences" except that Lenin rejects one of the fundemental tenets of Marxist thinking, abandoning Marx's historical, economic and social theories?


Not at all, he abandoned (sort of), one tenet of Marxists' thinking, however, Marx did in later life contemplate also the possibility of Russia bypassing the capitalist stage.


Seriously, if you haven't already, read Marx's 1844 Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, The German Ideology and the introduction to Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (all of which are relatively short, and can be easily found online), compare them to Leninist or Stalinist theory and practice, and you'll soon see how different the three lines of thought are.


Seriously, read some of Lenin's work, it actually strikingly similar in my opinion to Marx's. Based on his writings, you would have never expected Russia to turn out that way, Lenin clearly had a Marxist perspective.


They weren't socialist states, and, largely, weren't Marxist in nature.

Sure they were, they agreed with the central premis' of Marxism. Class warfare, equal and collective ownership, etc...


...apart from the Supreme Court of Canada ruling as such.


If Neesika saw this post, her head as she puts it, would explode. Trust me, read the thread, she is quite adamant that this is in fact fundamentally not the case.


It's true that there hasn't been a great deal of work on 'Virtue Politics', but in the last ten years or so there's been a sudden influx of virtue ethicists turning their attention to applied ethics.

Martha Nussbaums recent book Frontiers of Justice does exactly that; discussing the limts of rights-based and social contract-based ethics in the areas of disability, female emancipation and welfare of nonhuman animals, advocating a virtue-based political philosophy. Further, Rebecca Walker and Philip Ivanhoe's Working Virtue, published last year, is a large anthology dealing with virtue-based appproaches to (among other topics) bioethics, jurisprudence, familial ethics and interpersonal ethics.

Add to that influential books by Rosalind Hursthouse, Philippa Foot, Christine Swanton and others, and you can see a burgeoning political virtue ethics.


Ok, well how would a virtue ethicist deal with, say, the issue of the overweight plane passengers.

Not at all, he abandoned (sort of), one tenet of Marxists' thinking, however, Marx did in later life contemplate also the possibility of Russia bypassing the capitalist stage.
As far as I'm aware, Marx acknowledged the possibility of elements of a proletarian revolution happening in a war-torn state on the "fringes" of capitalism (adequetly describing Early 20th century Russia) but does not go further than this.

Seriously, read some of Lenin's work, it actually strikingly similar in my opinion to Marx's. Based on his writings, you would have never expected Russia to turn out that way, Lenin clearly had a Marxist perspective.
Of course it's similar; Lenin, as you've said, read a heck of a lot of Marx, and Lenin was highly influenced by Marx. But to decribe Leninism as Marxism is just misleading.

Lenin highly expanded the role of the Party, radically altering Marx's vision of the roles of the leaders of the non-capitalist state and reducing the role of the indiustrial proletariat, completely rejected Marx's assertion that the state will "wither away" once communism is implemented and talked all sorts of bullshit about 'liquidation' of those sections of society not 'compatible' with communism.

Lenin was a state-socialist, something that Marx would have balked at.

It's like saying Aristotle was a Platonist because he read, studied and was highly influenced by Plato, even though he rejected some central tenets of Plato's philosophy.

Sure they were, they agreed with the central premis' of Marxism. Class warfare, equal and collective ownership, etc...
That doesn't make them socialist states; which is what I'm under the impression we're discussing.

If Neesika saw this post, her head as she puts it, would explode. Trust me, read the thread, she is quite adamant that this is in fact fundamentally not the case.
Good for her.

Yet every article I can find on this subject suggests that the SCoC has ruled to grant a positive right (I cannot as of yet find the ruling on the SCoC's own site (http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/dn/2008/01.html)).

Ok, well how would a virtue ethicist deal with, say, the issue of the overweight plane passengers.
They wouldn't, for one thing, start waffling on about whether the overweight passenger had a (human) 'right' or not to sight in a chair.

Moreover, it depends on what virtue ethic your working off. Aristotelian? Neo-aristotelian? Pluralist?

However, I'd generally say that there is little virtuous in discriminating someone on the basis of their body-size when it is hard to see who is inconvinienced by the obese person. It's worth noting, additionally, that if the person is obese truly down to themselves, i.e that they are a glutton, then this too would be seen as invirtuous. Gluttony, or intemperance, is seen by most as a vice, not a virtue.

Capatilism is the superior form because history has proven its past that socialism does not work. In the case of extreme socialism with Joseph Stalin, he would put his farmers in a ditch, if they didn't give up their crops to be distrubuted evenly throughout Soviet Russia. Socialism does not fit the needs of people, Capitalism does. History has proven it's past, and Socialism without a doubt, does not work.
Socialism is the superior form because history has proven its past that capitalism does not work. In the case of extreme capitalism with the industrial revolution, poor people had to have their children work in mines with them if they didn't have enough money to be employers themselves. Capitalism does not fit the needs of people, socialism does. History has proven it's past, and capitalism without a doubt, does not work...

See? I can make arguments based on moot points too! No, I'm not saying socialism is inherently better; I'm only using such arguments as an analogy. Whether or not you perceive a certain system as "working" depends at the very least on what you value. Rather than having an arbitrary favoritism of one system over another, wouldn't it be more logical to have a system that mixes aspects from different systems to as to have certain standards on the positive aspects of both?

Socialism has no pros, only cons. Only unbridled free-market capitalism, implemented by a stern but just authoritarian leader, can guarantee prosperity for all.

Socialism is the superior form because history has proven its past that capitalism does not work. In the case of extreme capitalism with the industrial revolution, poor people had to have their children work in mines with them if they didn't have enough money to be employers themselves. Capitalism does not fit the needs of people, socialism does. History has proven it's past, and capitalism without a doubt, does not work...

Incorrect. Socialism means high unemployment, hyperinflation, massive corruption, and hardship for everyone save the political elite.

Countries that have declared to be socialist:

Russia, China, Somalia, Libya, North Korea, do I need to go on?

And Chile, when Allende was ruining it. Thank God Almighty that Pinochet saved the country.

Socialism has no pros, only cons. Only unbridled free-market capitalism, implemented by a stern but just authoritarian leader, can guarantee prosperity for all.

It's like how winter drives vermin into our homes! All of a sudden we've got a troll infestation.

It's like how winter drives vermin into our homes! All of a sudden we've got a troll infestation.

Pardon me?

Socialism has no pros, only cons. Only unbridled free-market capitalism, implemented by a stern but just authoritarian leader, can guarantee prosperity for all.

Not quite. While I do agree that the squeamish's obession with so-called 'human rights' is rather pathetic, indeed destructive to human progress, establishing an authoritarian leader tends to stifle these advancements due to their calcification and overly-conservative nature (such as the idea of blind subservience to throne and altar, for instance.) However, having an authoritarian leadership is better than letting the mob delude itself into thinking that the greatest luminaries are nothing more than their equals, and as such using dictatorial power to quash such sentiments is perfectly acceptable as a stopgap.

Pardon me?

Did I st-st-st-stutter, motherfucker?

Did I st-st-st-stutter, motherfucker?

"Motherfucker?" Sorry, I am not into incest.

And no, sir/madam, you did not stutter.

Incorrect. Socialism means high unemployment, hyperinflation, massive corruption, and hardship for everyone save the political elite.

Well, yes, it's not the most efficent system of governance, but really, aren't pros and cons of either dependent upon your paradigm and philosophy? I mean, think about it, if efficency is most important, then Capitalism is best. If equality is most important, than socialism is the best.

The point is, there's no objective way to call one better than another, pros and cons of each are determinant upon the attitude you take towards the role of the state and other matters.

By the way, I'm an Austrian School devotee, so don't call me a socialist. I happen to subscribe to the efficency over morality view myself.

Not quite. While I do agree that the squeamish's obession with so-called 'human rights' is rather pathetic, indeed destructive to human progress, establishing an authoritarian leader tends to stifle these advancements due to their calcification and overly-conservative nature (such as the idea of blind subservience to throne and altar, for instance.) However, having an authoritarian leadership is better than letting the mob delude itself into thinking that the greatest luminaries are nothing more than their equals, and as such using dictatorial power to quash such sentiments is perfectly acceptable as a stopgap.

I concur. Authoritarianism, however morally abhorrent to some, is oftentimes the only true solution. I shudder to think what depths Chile would have sunk to had Pinochet not liberated the country. Chile would otherwise be as repressive as Cuba and as poor as Zimbabwe. Thanks to Pinochet (whatever his faults), it is neither.

Well, yes, it's not the most efficent system of governance, but really, aren't pros and cons of either dependent upon your paradigm and philosophy? I mean, think about it, if efficency is most important, then Capitalism is best. If equality is most important, than socialism is the best.

The point is, there's no objective way to call one better than another, pros and cons of each are determinant upon the attitude you take towards the role of the state and other matters.

Socialism makes everyone equally poor (except the guys at the top, of course) and severely hinders, if not outright kills, social mobility.

"Motherfucker?" Sorry, I am not into incest.

And no, sir/madam, you did not stutter.

"This is blasphemy! This is madness!"

"No... This...is... NSG!" *Kicks into a pit*

On a related note, here at NSG, you're surrounded by Democratic-socialists, and centrists. Your views are somewhat unique and are being mistaken for a troll, mostly because of the odd mix of a dictator and free market.

Socialism makes everyone equally poor (except the guys at the top, of course) and severely hinders, if not outright kills, social mobility.

If by Socialism you mean Marxism, yes. But France isn't like that, nor is Spain, and both are quite strongly Socialist leaning.

Again, however, their economies aren't as efficent as possible because the socialism hinders their productivity. Things like their absurdly high minimum wage, high taxes, and overly generous employee benefits tend to harm employment and productivity.

On the other hand, the poor citizens are generally better off than in America.

It depends on what you consider more important, not aobjective criteria.

For a second I thought I was on Marxists.org...

On the other hand, the poor citizens are generally better off than in America.

Doubt it.

I concur. Authoritarianism, however morally abhorrent to some, is oftentimes the only true solution. I shudder to think what depths Chile would have sunk to had Pinochet not liberated the country. Chile would otherwise be as repressive as Cuba and as poor as Zimbabwe. Thanks to Pinochet (whatever his faults), it is neither.

"Morally abhorent?" Hardly. He had every right to do what many condemn him for.

While Pinochet most certainly did better than Allende would have, there is still the matter of the fact that there was progress that Pinochet would have also been able to achieve, had he not been lured into complacency by the stratification that necessarily accompanies bureaucratic and militaristic-type rulership (not to mention the unhealthy fetishism of religion that tends to accompany many right-wing regimes.)

Unhealthy fetishism?

Doubt it.

Why? They have free health care, a work week of 35 hours, and generous social benefits. American workers don't have healthcare except in emergency rooms, work 2 jobs to stay alive, and have very little in the way of social benefits relative to France.

Not to say I want to change that, people need to work harder to ensure society is more productive.

"Free" health care is neither free, nor efficient.

"Free" health care is neither free, nor efficient.

I know, but it is accessible. Private health care often is not, even though it is efficent.

Unhealthy fetishism?

You don't think that worshipping man-on-a-stick is a little odd?

and both are quite strongly Socialist leaning.


No they aren't.

You don't think that worshipping man-on-a-stick is a little odd?

What ever do you mean?

No they aren't.

You're not seriously saying the only Socialists are Marxian Socialists, are you? How are the European countries not Socialist, please tell me.

Well, Pinochet-lover (how adorable, another rascally fascist!), Zarathustra Sprach, apparently a Nietzche adept, speaks of Jesus the Nazarene when he was crucified. Calling the cross a stick is a bit simplistic, but his statement still stands.

You're not seriously saying the only Socialists are Marxian Socialists, are you? How are the European countries not Socialist, please tell me.

Because they aren't, they're simply welfare capitalists. They are still free market economies, they don't have state ownership over the majority of means of production.

Do you even know what a fascist is, Hurdegaryp?

What ever do you mean?

How can you possibly reconcile the idea that it is acceptable to use force to achieve one's ends and for one's own betterment alongside the worship of someone who, rather than resisting and destroying his attackers, simply let them end his life? Surely if the ones who had murdered Christ had been Marxist-Leninists, as opposed to Romans, you would not think so highly of sacrificing oneself to such as them instead of annihilating them? Holding such a reverence can only limit one's potential by imposing false boundaries on what is and isn't acceptable.

It is not for me to question Him.

Because they aren't, they're simply welfare capitalists. They are still free market economies, they don't have state ownership over the majority of means of production.

Right, which just makes them Non-Marxian Socialists. And while they don't have a large state sector, they do possess a state sector considerably larger than America.

Welfare Capitalism is simply a word for New Socialism, not a type of Capitalism, which by definition must be free of welfare to be Capitalism. If it doesn't agree mostly with Hayek, it's not real capitalism.

It is not for me to question Him.

lol

What's so funny?

Right, which just makes them Non-Marxian Socialists. And while they don't have a large state sector, they do possess a state sector considerably larger than America.


Not really. In fact, the US spends more on health care than any other country in the world.


Welfare Capitalism is simply a word for New Socialism, not a type of Capitalism, which by definition must be free of welfare to be Capitalism.

Just like, by definition, socialism must be free of private ownership. No country in the world is either purely capitalist or purely socialist, but France and Spain are much closer to capitalism than socialism.

We can't say that an obese person cannot be discriminated against at all, because there are clearly situations where it's perfectly legitimate to discriminate against obese people. So we're reduced to doing what the SCoC has done, and make the bizarre move of creating a positive right for a fat man to sit in two chairs.





...apart from the Supreme Court of Canada ruling as such.



*le sigh*
Once again.

1) The SCC made no ruling. It refused to hear an appeal from the Federal Court of Appeals, which funtionally upholds their ruling.
2) The ruling deals with the negative right to not be discriminated against, and the positive obligation on part of the airline to accommodate disability.

I'm glad we had this little talk.

Do you even know what a fascist is, Hurdegaryp?

You've got all kinds of 'em. I'm pretty sure Pinochet qualifies, Franco wannabe as he was. The dead bastard certainly wasn't a democrat.

Not really. In fact, the US spends more on health care than any other country in the world.



Just like, by definition, socialism must be free of private ownership. No country in the world is either purely capitalist or purely socialist, but France and Spain are much closer to capitalism than socialism.

Well, if you take the Marxian definition, yes. I'd call it a Mixed Economy, or Socialism Lite, under my own preferences, and every country existing today is at least a bit Socialist.

Basically, unless the country has the policies of Ron Paul or the Austrian School, it's socialist or semi-socialist.

Welfare Capitalism is simply a word for New Socialism, not a type of Capitalism, which by definition must be free of welfare to be Capitalism. If it doesn't agree mostly with Hayek, it's not real capitalism.

Real capitalism sucks balls anyway. Controlled capitalism has its merits, though.

You've got all kinds of 'em. I'm pretty sure Pinochet qualifies, Franco wannabe as he was. The dead bastard certainly wasn't a democrat.

He wasn't a democrat or a fascist. It's entirely possible to be a right-wing dictator without being a fascist.

Real capitalism sucks balls anyway. Controlled capitalism has its merits, though.

Explain to me why real, unadulterated capitalism is bad. If you can do it without appeals to emotion, I'll give you an E-cookie.

1) Why should the (U.S.) government put taxes on corporations? The corporations are already being heavily taxed, and they'll just pass the extra costs down to the consumer.

So we can pay them more money when they are not doing well? That should be made obvious with the recent economic crisis.

Here's an article from Noam Chomsky on Free Market
http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featchomsky_63.htm

2) A socialist government will tell people where they can work, how much money they can make, and regulate the shit out of everyone just to make everyone equal. (My friend came up with this situation where a socialist government will regulate sexual intercourse so that everyone is equal)

There really isn't anything economically problematic with equality. The biggest economic issue with socialism is that, without dynamic prices, it is impossible to know how much of what needs to be produce. Having a central power trying to control production with no way of telling supply/demand is obviously going to fail. The reason why equal pay is so bad is because everyone ends up with nothing.

If you want to talk about freedom, you really have to define what it is. As Karl Marx puts it in the Communist Manifesto

"In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed -- a class of laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital. These laborers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market. "

So in a hypothetically perfect communist society, I will have a choice of working at a job that I like (say an artist) for the same wage as everyone else. Whereas in a capitalist society I would most likely risk becoming homeless due to it's lack of market value.

3) There is no economic crisis. It's just a fabrication of the media. (I forgot to ask clarification on *why* the media would do it, though I remember she said something about the "herd mentality")

Check the inflation rate/dropping in housing prices lately?

Since I cannot sell your E-cookie and make a healthy profit, I consider your offer to be worthless. Also I'm not a machine, so it's pretty much impossible for me to explain certain things involving socio-economic concepts, morality and ethics without mixing in a bit of emotion. I could say I'm sorry about that, but I'm not.

Did I st-st-st-stutter, motherfucker?

It's like how winter drives vermin into our homes! All of a sudden we've got a troll infestation.

Trolling and flaming, are we?

I won't report you but you would do well to hold your tongue in the future, for the sake of common courtesy, naturally.

Thank you, The Atlantian islands. :)

Do you even know what a fascist is, Hurdegaryp?
No, he doesn't.

Chile under Pinochet was not fascist.

Many on the Left like to use Fascist as a bad word they just throw at people they dislike.

I'll admit though, many on the Right use socialist/communist as a bad word that they throw at people they dislike, but still, my point stands.

Since I cannot sell your E-cookie and make a healthy profit, I consider your offer to be worthless. Also I'm not a machine, so it's pretty much impossible for me to explain certain things involving socio-economic concepts, morality and ethics without mixing in a bit of emotion. I could say I'm sorry about that, but I'm not.

Sure you can. I do it all the time, the reason you cannot is because Socialism is an appeal to emotion, not reason. Saying Capitalism is bad because it hurts the poor isn't an arguement, it's appealing to morality and emotion, which is flawed, the former because it assumes without justification that morality exists, and the latter because it is not a reasonable basis for arguement.

Thank you, The Atlantian islands. :)
De rien. :wink:

No, he doesn't.

Chile under Pinochet was not fascist.

Many on the Left like to use Fascist as a bad word they just throw at people they dislike.

Exactly!

Well, if you take the Marxian definition, yes. I'd call it a Mixed Economy, or Socialism Lite, under my own preferences, and every country existing today is at least a bit Socialist.


Fine, but your definition of socialism is quite different to academic definitions.

Economically speaking, Chile certainly wasn't a fascist state when the Pinochet junta ruled. I'll grant The Atlantian Islands that.

Also, "I LOVE Pinochet", Zarathustra Sprach was explaining his unease with those on the Right being too religious or to publicly religious, as it were.

I tend to agree, though don't take it to such an extreme as he did; "man on a stick"....

And under socialism, everybody is regarded as a commodity. Sort of the drawback of such a system...I mean, no capitalist state has ever had to build walls to keep its people in. The irony is, the socialist states of the 20th century had universally higher levels of income inequality and real poverty compared to their capitalist rivals.

I'd just like to requote this, because I think it works to end the debate of this thread.

In the end, it doesn't matter about what would be, in theory, but how it *is*, once applied to our lives.

Chile under Pinochet was not fascist.

Many on the Left like to use Fascist as a bad word they just throw at people they dislike.

I'll admit though, many on the Right use socialist/communist as a bad word that they throw at people they dislike, but still, my point stands.

I'll admit to having rather lefty views, but the overuse of "fascist" really annoys me. Its probably a by-product of the orthodox Soviet line that since fascist regimes didn't abolish the class structure or fundamentally alter the mode of production , capitalism=fascism, and thus any vaguely authoritarian regime that isn't communist must be fascist. Why those who have otherwise moved far away from the Marxist orthodoxy keep using the term in the same way, I really don't know.

Socialism has no pros, only cons. Only unbridled free-market capitalism, implemented by a stern but just authoritarian leader, can guarantee prosperity for all.

The problem with that is only a small number of regimes can actually implement real positive changes under that guise. The Shah of Iran, obviously, was one, and he would have probably proved your point, had the CIA not overthrown him.

True, The Parthians.

Explain to me why real, unadulterated capitalism is bad. If you can do it without appeals to emotion, I'll give you an E-cookie.

Infrastructure. The free market relies on free competition, but in the case of roads and railways free competition is unnecessary and potentially dangerous.

For example: people in a free market society want a way to cross a river. Entrepreneurs turn up, notice this potential for profit, and start building toll bridges. Soon there are ten bridges across the river, each run by a different person. Potential for competition is strictly limited: there is only so much you can do with a bridge once it is built, so it won't lead to innovation. On the other hand, there are now eight or nine bridges that are totally unused, and a lot of perfectly good land has been wasted in the process by building these bridges.

Alternatively, a government could build one bridge, the benefits of competition wouldn't be reduced as there is only strictly limited competition in the first place, the barriers to movement of goods, services, and labour are lower as the government can charge cost on the tolls instead of making a profit, and the riverside land is still available.

Infrastructure. The free market relies on free competition, but in the case of roads and railways free competition is unnecessary and potentially dangerous.


While I can't disagree with you on the matter of roads, especially since there is so much free-rider potential in the case of roads, while at the same time, the capital investment is so incredibly high, railways in the US exist in a highly competitive environment, and yet, they remain safe.

Passenger rail is flailing, of course, but cargo trains are doing fine.

Infrastructure. The free market relies on free competition, but in the case of roads and railways free competition is unnecessary and potentially dangerous.

For example: people in a free market society want a way to cross a river. Entrepreneurs turn up, notice this potential for profit, and start building toll bridges. Soon there are ten bridges across the river, each run by a different person. Potential for competition is strictly limited: there is only so much you can do with a bridge once it is built, so it won't lead to innovation. On the other hand, there are now eight or nine bridges that are totally unused, and a lot of perfectly good land has been wasted in the process by building these bridges.

Alternatively, a government could build one bridge, the benefits of competition wouldn't be reduced as there is only strictly limited competition in the first place, the barriers to movement of goods, services, and labour are lower as the government can charge cost on the tolls instead of making a profit, and the riverside land is still available.


A few assumptions made here which are flawed. First, you're assuming that once one entrepreneur sees a competing bridge going up, he's going to construct the exact same bridge or that the bank would finance such a project.

Second, you're assuming that the market wouldn't prefer to select amongst the alternatives rather than just rely on the government-provided monopoly.

Finally, you're assuming that the market cannot support more than one. Even if it cannot, then the other owners will go out of buisness and the bridges will be torn down.

I'll admit to having rather lefty views, but the overuse of "fascist" really annoys me. Its probably a by-product of the orthodox Soviet line that since fascist regimes didn't abolish the class structure or fundamentally alter the mode of production , capitalism=fascism, and thus any vaguely authoritarian regime that isn't communist must be fascist. Why those who have otherwise moved far away from the Marxist orthodoxy keep using the term in the same way, I really don't know.
Well you can reach that far if you'd like, but there is another explanation that's right in front of our eyes.

WWII. It was Democracy vs. Fascism, Good vs. Evil (from a Western perspective..I'm not talking about the Russians..but about the Western World). When Nazi-Germany was destroyed and its evils revealed to the world, Fascism became intertwined with Nazism to the lay person, thus; violence and extreme racism. However, there is nothing inherently evil about Fascism, as for example, Mussolini envisioned it. It's not my cup of tea, personally, but anyone who understands the ideology politically and economically, understands there is nothing straight out evil about it. Given that NSG is, in actuality, a forum filled with arm-chair political scientists, I'd expect people here to know that, but alas, there are those here that continue to use it as a bad word tainted with evil. Well that simply shows their lack of intelligence, in my book.

While I can't disagree with you on the matter of roads, especially since there is so much free-rider potential in the case of roads, while at the same time, the capital investment is so incredibly high, railways in the US exist in a highly competitive environment, and yet, they remain safe.

Passenger rail is flailing, of course, but cargo trains are doing fine.
I agree with him on roads and bridges, but for trains one simply has to look at the horrible state-run Amtrack. It's awful. It is the epitome of the public sector sucking ass in comparison to the private sector.

Explain to me why real, unadulterated capitalism is bad. If you can do it without appeals to emotion, I'll give you an E-cookie.

Capitalism ignores external cost. It makes each individual take the most rational decisions, but the sum of the parts becomes irrational for everyone. Using hormones + antibiotic for milk production in the US is one example. It makes extra bucks for the individual farm in a short term, but when everyone else does it drive down prices and degrades the food source. Unfortunately this reduction of cost does not get transfer to the consumers. As US are overproducing milk, much of it ends up going down the drain. Carbon emission is another one of those things companies don't necessary care about, or any other environmental issues for that matter. Fishing is another big one. Imagine how much fish we will still have in the ocean without fishing regulations. Free market will have ensure that each fishing industry do the most rational thing, to fish as much as they could every year. But doing so would have destroy the fish sources they needed to survive. Regulation in this sense is beneficial to the fishing industries as a whole.

A few assumptions made here which are flawed. First, you're assuming that once one entrepreneur sees a competing bridge going up, he's going to construct the exact same bridge or that the bank would finance such a project.

Presumably there'd be more than one bank. I'm assuming that several would rush to have the first bridge across the river, which doesn't seem unreasonable.

Second, you're assuming that the market wouldn't prefer to select amongst the alternatives rather than just rely on the government-provided monopoly.


Once again, this doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption as the government will be able to charge cost on the tolls instead of making a profit. They'd presumably have the same ability to decide between maintenance contractors as a private company would, so their running costs ought to be the same as a business.

Finally, you're assuming that the market cannot support more than one. Even if it cannot, then the other owners will go out of buisness and the bridges will be torn down.

If the market can support more than one bridge, the government can build more than one bridge. The difference is that the government won't build superfluous bridges in the first place (ideally, although the Governor of Alaska might try).


I agree with him on roads and bridges, but for trains one simply has to look at the horrible state-run Amtrack. It's awful. It is the epitome of the public sector sucking ass in comparison to the private sector.

I admit to not knowing much about the American railway system, being British myself, but it seems as if the problem is that the government are running some of the trains as well as the track. In the case of railways I only support the government looking after the track, cables etc. They can then charge train operators to use it.

Also, "I LOVE Pinochet", Zarathustra Sprach was explaining his unease with those on the Right being too religious or to publicly religious, as it were.

I tend to agree, though don't take it to such an extreme as he did; "man on a stick"....

I'm not uneasy with those on the Right being too publicly religious. I say that religion is foolishness, the more one indulges in it the further one is bound by superstition, and as such it is a liability. In a superficial way, the Marxists are superior to the Christians in this regard... except that, like the Christians, they too exalt lowliness (perhaps even more, if such a thing can be achieved.)

The problem with that is only a small number of regimes can actually implement real positive changes under that guise. The Shah of Iran, obviously, was one, and he would have probably proved your point, had the CIA not overthrown him.

The CIA didn't overthrow him, it helped him stay in power. The Iranian revolutionaries overthrew him.

Socialism has no pros, only cons. Only unbridled free-market capitalism, implemented by a stern but just authoritarian leader, can guarantee prosperity for all.

Then I won't shed a tear when you're put in front of the firing squad.

Come back when you learn not to make unsupported, inane generalisations.

Socialism has no pros, only cons. Only unbridled free-market capitalism, implemented by a stern but just authoritarian leader, can guarantee prosperity for all.
So individuals are free to buy and sell however they please...as dictated by the authoritarian leader? Huh?

Welfare Capitalism is simply a word for New Socialism, not a type of Capitalism, which by definition must be free of welfare to be Capitalism. If it doesn't agree mostly with Hayek, it's not real capitalism.

Hayek actually was quite comfortable with some level of government regulation and welfare statism. Mises even criticized The Constitution of Liberty for being too comfortable with the welfare state.

Basically, unless the country has the policies of Ron Paul or the Austrian School, it's socialist or semi-socialist.

Since the policies of the Austrian School have never been fully implemented then capitalism has never existed and ewe can thank socialism for all current prosperity.

i can perfectly well understand why no one wants to trust procustianism, but i'll be damd if i can see how that makes anyone think they can trust capitolism either.

at any rate, socialism isn't marxism. it isn't even antithetical to anything.

the only reason people catigorize them togather is because they've been brain washed by very vested intrestes in their doing so, into doing so.

socialism simply means the public owning what rightfully belongs to the public, instead of being ripped off by economic intrests which don't give a dam about anyone or anything other then their own twisted circular illogic.

it don't have a damd thing to do with pointing guns nor taking anything.
it simply means NOT robbing from the poor to give to the rich.
(which is exactly what 'privitization' DOES mean)

capitolism, marxism, faschism, even some forms of monarchism, do that.

i can perfectly well understand why no one wants to trust procustianism, but i'll be damd if i can see how that makes anyone think they can trust capitolism either.

at any rate, socialism isn't marxism. it isn't even antithetical to anything.

the only reason people catigorize them togather is because they've been brain washed by very vested intrestes in their doing so, into doing so.

socialism simply means the public owning what rightfully belongs to the public, instead of being ripped off by economic intrests which don't give a dam about anyone or anything other then their own twisted circular illogic.

it don't have a damd thing to do with pointing guns nor taking anything.
it simply means NOT robbing from the poor to give to the rich.
(which is exactly what 'privitization' DOES mean)

capitolism, marxism, faschism, even some forms of monarchism, do that.

The following scenario is a bit contrived, but bear with me.

Let's say an electric utility was owned (mismanaged?) by the government. Then said utility was privatized and turned into a pseudo-cooperative. Equal shares of the cooperative were then issued to every worker based on their prior contribution, every subscriber in the service area based on their level of use, everyone who has an interest is compensated with shares or fractional shares. Then one year's worth of operating expenses was raised by selling shares to public investors.
After one year, any profits are distributed equally to people based on the number of shares they have. Realistically, due to buying shares in bulk, the investors will probably make out better than any other class, but there will not have been any "robbing of the poor." So in this scenario, privatization leads to benefit for all with no immediately apparent downside.

Or maybe I'm splitting hairs here, and a cooperative is a milder form of socialism?

Or maybe I'm splitting hairs here, and a cooperative is a milder form of socialism?

yes, a cooperative IS the REAL socialism. state capitolism, whether it pays homage to marx or adam smith, is not.

1) Why should the (U.S.) government put taxes on corporations? The corporations are already being heavily taxed, and they'll just pass the extra costs down to the consumer.
Because they owe society a favour. As to them passing extra costs down - what with the importance of predator pricing and all that, the average punter will suffer less as a result of having corporation-paid taxes benefitting their livelihoods than they will in minor extra costs.
2) A socialist government will tell people where they can work, how much money they can make, and regulate the shit out of everyone just to make everyone equal.
No, that would be a communist dictatorship. Rather different.
(My friend came up with this situation where a socialist government will regulate sexual intercourse so that everyone is equal)
Uhu... who's the party wanting control over peoples' private lives in the US? The more left-wing party, or the right wing one?
3) There is no economic crisis. It's just a fabrication of the media. (I forgot to ask clarification on *why* the media would do it, though I remember she said something about the "herd mentality")
You are wrong.

I agree with him on roads and bridges, but for trains one simply has to look at the horrible state-run Amtrack. It's awful. It is the epitome of the public sector sucking ass in comparison to the private sector.
Living in a country where trains are an important method of transport, things only went downhill here with privatisation.

I was having a "debate" (for lack of a better word) with my friend about the pros and cons of socialism vs. capitalism. I know that there was a thread "What's Wrong with Socialism?" a few months back, but my friend brought up some interesting issues that I haven't really thought about. A word about my friend, shes a conservative, but not religious (bordering on atheism), and is cynical of the national government (she wants to reduce government interference in people's lives). I'm para-phrasing her ideas, 'cause most of the "debate" took place on the subway.

1) Why should the (U.S.) government put taxes on corporations? The corporations are already being heavily taxed, and they'll just pass the extra costs down to the consumer.

2) A socialist government will tell people where they can work, how much money they can make, and regulate the shit out of everyone just to make everyone equal. (My friend came up with this situation where a socialist government will regulate sexual intercourse so that everyone is equal)

3) There is no economic crisis. It's just a fabrication of the media. (I forgot to ask clarification on *why* the media would do it, though I remember she said something about the "herd mentality")

I'm a staunch, conservative capitalist. I like low taxes, I like business.

However, your friend is a moron.

First of all, the economic crisis part is wrong. There is an economic crisis going on. Of course, that doesn't mean the media is blameless. Their sensationalizing of the problem only makes it worse, because when others see that others are selling, they sell.

A sees B sell, so s/he sells.

C and D see that A and B have sold, so they sell.

E, F, G, and H see that A-D have sold, so they also sell.

Simple bandwagon effect. Your friend is somewhat correct about "herd mentality"

However, the economic crisis started because the idiots who ran the financial giants Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG got greedy during the 90s and got involved in massive risky loans. When these loans couldn't be paid back, the companies had to buy them back at tremendous losses.

These losses encouraged high-ups in the companies to sell their stock so they would lose large amounts. Of course, when the average stockholder saw the fat-cats selling, they grew afraid, because for a lot of them, their financial security was involved, so they sold.

This panic forced all but AIG to close their doors, because their stock prices dropped so much and their customers began fleeing.

If the fat-cats hadn't sold heavily or got involved in risky loans, there wouldn't be this whole mess.

Your friend's depiction of a socialist nation is wrong. They do have much more industry regulation and control, but they don't tell people where to work or how much they get paid. They merely use taxes in an attempt to level the playing field.

Why should the consumer pay more? Well, really, they only do initially, but competition forces companies to slowly lower their prices, eventually making everything better.

Capitalism has its bad times, but it always works itself out. That's the ingenious thing about it.

Well you can reach that far if you'd like, but there is another explanation that's right in front of our eyes.

WWII. It was Democracy vs. Fascism, Good vs. Evil (from a Western perspective..I'm not talking about the Russians..but about the Western World). When Nazi-Germany was destroyed and its evils revealed to the world, Fascism became intertwined with Nazism to the lay person, thus; violence and extreme racism. However, there is nothing inherently evil about Fascism, as for example, Mussolini envisioned it. It's not my cup of tea, personally, but anyone who understands the ideology politically and economically, understands there is nothing straight out evil about it. Given that NSG is, in actuality, a forum filled with arm-chair political scientists, I'd expect people here to know that, but alas, there are those here that continue to use it as a bad word tainted with evil. Well that simply shows their lack of intelligence, in my book.

There's not really such thing as an evil system of government. If fascism, communism, and dictatorships were run benevolently, they could be very successful.

Unfortunately, its the decisions by those who get into power that cause people to incorrectly associate such ideologies with evil.

Living in a country where trains are an important method of transport, things only went downhill here with privatisation.
Privatisation is no different to any other corporate takeover deal: regardless of how fancy you get with the financial engineering it only really produces value in the end if the management is significantly better. Though there is a pattern of for-profit business being better-run than state-owned ones, you'd be a fool to think that all privatisations, no matter who ends up running the firm, are good. And the same goes vice versa.

But assuming that a good buyer can be found and the process for listing the assets is fair and transparent, privatising is better than not privatising.

There's not really such thing as an evil system of government. If fascism, communism, and dictatorships were run benevolently, they could be very successful.
"Evil" is a moral term, "successful" isn't. A well-run national socialist system may be very successful, but that doesn't make it morally justifiable. Success is a measure of how well the system attains its goals - if those goals are evil, the less success, the better.

"Evil" is a moral term, "successful" isn't. A well-run national socialist system may be very successful, but that doesn't make it morally justifiable. Success is a measure of how well the system attains its goals - if those goals are evil, the less success, the better.

True.

Then I won't shed a tear when you're put in front of the firing squad.

Why would he be the one in front of the firing squad? He would seem to accept his place if such a regime were to spring up; I, for one, would probably use the bullets on people other than my supporters.

Why would he be the one in front of the firing squad? He would seem to accept his place if such a regime were to spring up; I, for one, would probably use the bullets on people other than my supporters.

They're called purges, and they happen in authoritarian regimes.

There's not really such thing as an evil system of government. If fascism, communism, and dictatorships were run benevolently, they could be very successful.
Benevolent Communism doesn't exist to me since I'd be one of those targeted in a class war......

Benovelent National Socialism also doesn't exist to me since I'd be one of those targeted in anti-semetic cleansing.
Living in a country where trains are an important method of transport, things only went downhill here with privatisation.
Hmm, maybe that has to do with the vicegrip like hold the unions have on business in England?

In America the auto industry sucks because (in my opinion) of the unions simply parylizing Detroit to be able to remain competetive....but that doesn't mean that privatization of the auto industry is bad..... Could be the same case with trains.

2) A socialist government will tell people where they can work, how much money they can make, and regulate the shit out of everyone just to make everyone equal. (My friend came up with this situation where a socialist government will regulate sexual intercourse so that everyone is equal)

that one's pretty funny and suggests to me she likes making strawmen and knows fuck all about socialism.


though your point c) about the media and the financial crisis... i wouldn't agree with her, but i would suggest the media are making it a lot worse by frightening consumers into not spending, and as such damaging the consumer economy.

Living in a country where trains are an important method of transport, things only went downhill here with privatisation.

i think the main reason for that is because the tories did it in such a way that actually negated the benefits of privatisation - namely, competition. they created a network of regional monopolies and force competition through a regulator. the only parts of the rail industry to remain national (in terms of scale) were sold to individual companies, again creating monopolies without competition. the whole fucking point of privatisation is to create competition and increase efficiency, and in the way they did it, neither of those two things have happened, and all we're left with is regional monopolies with a profit motive.

imo, the tories did it just to earn money and hive off chunks of business to their cronys... but then i'm cynical of the tories like that ;)

but anyway, for such an essential part of many people's lives, i'd rather see a nationalised company with a customer service motive rather than a privatised one with a profit motive, however more efficient the private company could be. maybe some quasi markets would have been a lot better than wholesale privatisation...

Your guess is as good as mine, but I kind of want to try it. The grammar is so astonishingly creative, that it appears to be translated directly from English into Finnish, then back into English by someone who speaks only Mongolian. And that's not even looking at the ideas he's espousing.

Why do you have to drag Finnish into this?! Why? :)

Pros: Not a one.

Cons: Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!

Nothing else need be said.

Explain to me why real, unadulterated capitalism is bad. If you can do it without appeals to emotion, I'll give you an E-cookie.

market failures exist in any study of economics. merit and demerit goods/services, lack of inflationary control, free riders and provision of public goods/services/infrastructure, Rawls' veil of ignorance as a philisophical reasoning for reduced inequality inherent in the free market, lack of internalising externalities (with regard to the environment, for example), lack of regulation for increased competition... that's what i can think of for now

In socialism, The True socialism, Everyone gets the same amount of money, no matter how hard they work. Lets say bill works 10 hours a day for $100, and bob works 4 hours a day, for 100$ as well. Something seems wrong here. And if you don't like it, thats where communism takes over, and forces you to do it, or you get shot. Thats why most socialist nations have large militaries, mostly to control their disgruntled people, and i'm talking about hardcore socialism, not mixed socialism, like we see in Europe and Canada.

Unfortunately, you're pretty much right.

i'd rather see a nationalised company with a customer service motive rather than a privatised one with a profit motive, however more efficient the private company could be. maybe some quasi markets would have been a lot better than wholesale privatisation...
But good customar service usually only exists when the business must attract the consumer for fear of losing him to another competitor. It's highly unlikely (nonexistent?) that good customer service would exist in a nationalized company, just for shits and giggles.

Unfortunately, you're pretty much right.
I don't know why everyone calls Canada so 'socialist'.....I know it's a bit left of the U.S. but I've always felt it wasn't anywhere near as mixed of an economy as a typical European economy (difficult to say, I know..what is a 'typical' European economy....but let's keep it general since this isn't what I'm asking)?? I mean from what I have been able to tell Canada has relatively high economic freedom?

In faaaaaact.....
http://www.heritage.org/Index/topten.cfm

.....Canada seems to be ranked 7th in terms of global economic freedom when taking into consideration:

Business Freedom Trade Freedom Fiscal Freedom Government Size Monetary Freedom Investment Freedom Financial Freedom Property Rights Freedom from Corruption Labour Freedom

But good customar service usually only exists when the business must attract the consumer for fear of losing him to another competitor. It's highly unlikely (nonexistent?) that good customer service would exist in a nationalized company, just for shits and giggles.

well i did have something specific in mind when i said that... there was a big stink when British Rail was privatised because one of the first things many of the new private companies did was to cancel lines and close stations in remote and rural areas because those lines were not profitable enough. this cut a lot of people off from their jobs and caused a lot of disruption. British Rail had been continuing many of these low-profit or even loss-leading lines and stations due to its role to provide customer service as opposed to profit.

now, you can't blame those businesses for doing that - its a business no-brainer, but many people were a lot better off with nationalised rail.

perhaps customer service is the wrong word... i have a cold and my brain is fuzzy! :$

Unfortunately, you're pretty much right.

Unfortunately, you're both wrong.

2) A socialist government will tell people where they can work, how much money they can make, and regulate the shit out of everyone just to make everyone equal. (My friend came up with this situation where a socialist government will regulate sexual intercourse so that everyone is equal)

Saying that about socialism means not knowing anything about socialism but Reagan-era propaganda.

Take a look at the Prague Spring, or to the Yugoslav model. Good examples of non-dogmatic, non-ultraregulated socialist societies.

Unfortunately, you're both wrong.

My uncle lived in a socialist country. He spend half the week at home getting ass-drunk, and got paid the same as everybody else.

My uncle lived in a socialist country. He spend half the week at home getting ass-drunk, and got paid the same as everybody else.

What so-called "socialist" country was this? Because the coordinator states of Eastern Europe had some of the biggest class stratifications of any countries in the world.

Furthermore, the experience of the USSR and other states like it is not the sum whole of socialism. It's even arguable that they even practised socialism at all. Given the fact that class stratifications still existed, the working class still were wage-slaves that did not own or control the means of production, it's much more accurate to say that these countries merely draped a red flag over state capitalism.