Let me ask you a couple questions...

[lord of flies]

Do you believe in equality of opportunity?

 

Do you believe that no one should profit off another's hard work?

 

If you answered yes, welcome to the Socialist Party.

 

In the capitalist system, people do not have the same opportunities. It is possible, sure, for someone to rise from a low position to a high one, or for the opposite to occur, but it is not normal. A person born in a high position is likely to stay in the same place, as is a person born in a low position. This has nothing to do with any inherent quality or characteristic. One person just has the advantage of raw capital, which is key to acquiring wealth and (with it) power.

 

And how does raw capital grant wealth and power? By stealing wealth from others. The capitalists and investors profit not from their own work, but from the labor of others. To be sure, the actions of critically analyzing and selecting projects which are good against those that are bad is certainly labor - it takes time and energy - but capitalists and investors are not compensated for this work. They are not paid in proportion to their labor, but in proportion to the labors of others. This is how their wealth grows, by feeding on the labor of others, not by their own work.

[Hurlshort]

Do you believe that no one should profit off another's hard work?

 

Wait, what? Do you mean like if a farmer milks a cow, do I, as a non-farmer, deserve to get a drink from his hard work?

[lord of flies]

Wait, what? Do you mean like if a farmer milks a cow, do I, as a non-farmer, deserve to get a drink from his hard work?

No, I mean that if a farmer milks a cow, should you, as a non-farmer, come in and take some of his milk without paying for it (or any similar exchange)? Edited January 24, 2010 by Tigranes

[I want teh kotor 3]

Here we go again...

 

Do you believe in equality of opportunity?

Nope.

 

Do you believe that no one should profit off another's hard work?

Nope.

 

If you answered yes, welcome to the Socialist Party.

Have fun working to death in Siberia.

 

In the capitalist system, people do not have the same opportunities. It is possible, sure, for someone to rise from a low position to a high one, or for the opposite to occur, but it is not normal. A person born in a high position is likely to stay in the same place, as is a person born in a low position. This has nothing to do with any inherent quality or characteristic. One person just has the advantage of raw capital, which is key to acquiring wealth and (with it) power.

Talent and brilliance will still get you up. Why should someone with no particular talent be awarded an undeserved socioeconomic status?

 

 

And how does raw capital grant wealth and power?

Capital grants wealth because... Well... It is, by definition, wealth. It grants power because the government exists to preserve the economy, not the other way around.

 

By stealing wealth from others.

Socialism, by definition, employs just as much stealing as capitalism.

 

The capitalists and investors profit not from their own work, but from the labor of others.

Right. Carnegie, Rockefeller, Gates, et. al. definitely grew wealthy by having no talent or invested labor.

 

To be sure, the actions of critically analyzing and selecting projects which are good against those that are bad is certainly labor - it takes time and energy - but capitalists and investors are not compensated for this work.

No? They're rewarded for their successful decisions and investments.

 

They are not paid in proportion to their labor, but in proportion to the labors of others. This is how their wealth grows, by feeding on the labor of others, not by their own work.

 

The "labor of others" exists because of the executives and the investors who drive the corporations. Without them, nothing can be achieved.

 

EDIT: Also, I'm with Aram. This is getting old.

Edited January 24, 2010 by I want teh kotor 3

[lord of flies]

Have fun working to death in Siberia.

ACTUALLY, even if we assume that socialism would result in me being thrown into a work camp (it wouldn't), it would probably be in Alaska. A-duh.

Talent and brilliance will still get you up.

Maybe, maybe not. It's by no means certain or automatic.

Why should someone with no particular talent be awarded an undeserved socioeconomic status?

I agree. Why should I get to be rich just because my daddy was?

Capital grants wealth because... Well... It is, by definition, wealth.

No, it grants wealth because it allows you to buy "property" and then pay people some fraction of the actual worth of their labor because you own that "property," so obviously you deserve money just for owning something.

It grants power because the government exists to preserve the economy, not the other way around.

Do you really believe in an open dictatorship by the wealthy?

Socialism, by definition, employs just as much stealing as capitalism.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Right. Carnegie, Rockefeller, Gates, et. al. definitely grew wealthy by having no talent or invested labor.

Not every rich person was born poor! Crazy, I know!

No? They're rewarded for their successful decisions and investments.

And what if, by some luck of the draw, their decisions aren't successful? They're not rewarded. Because they're being paid for others.

The "labor of others" exists because of the executives and the investors who drive the corporations. Without them, nothing can be achieved.

You have no comprehension of how economics works, otherwise you wouldn't say something as mind-numbingly dumb as this. So, what, "nothing" was "achieved" in the Soviet Union?

EDIT: Also, I'm with Aram. This is getting old.

[Hurlshort]

I'd be more impressed if we actually had an example of a successful socialist system.

[lord of flies]

I'd be more impressed if we actually had an example of a successful socialist system.

Depends on what your definition of "successful" is. Cuba has the 51st HDI rating, putting it above (for example) Mexico, Brazil, Albania, Turkey, Russia and China, its HDI is the 8th highest in the Americas (5th in North America, 3rd in the Caribbean). It's GDP per capita (PPP) is 107th, and is greater than (for example) China, the Ukraine and Indonesia.

 

Edit: And that's with the embargo.

Edited January 24, 2010 by lord of flies

[I want teh kotor 3]

[ACTUALLY, even if we assume that socialism would result in me being thrown into a work camp (it wouldn't), it would probably be in Alaska. A-duh.

 

Because the USSR never exiled dissidents to hard labor.

 

Maybe, maybe not. It's by no means certain or automatic.

If you're good enough it is. In a Communist system, however, the opposite is true: talent is punished, and ineptitude is rewarded.

 

I agree. Why should I get to be rich just because my daddy was?

You shouldn't. Thus, I agree with my grandparents, who carved out the inheritances based on merit.

 

No, it grants wealth because it allows you to buy "property" and then pay people some fraction of the actual worth of their labor because you own that "property," so obviously you deserve money just for owning something.

You deserve it because, in owning something, you exchanged money for something worth money.

 

Do you really believe in an open dictatorship by the wealthy?

No. I believe in the government getting out of the economy and my life, instead focusing on keeping me safe with a military. By the same token, however, do you really believe in an open dictatorship by the poor and inept?

 

Saying it doesn't make it so.

 

No? Here's a theoretical example: Let's say I make $50k. In my neighborhood, there are 6 people who make $25k and two people who make $10k. By socialist logic, we should each obtain the average of our incomes, which is $22k. Therefore, $28k are taken from me. The taking of my property, by others, without my permission, is, by definition (using big, colorful letters to make sure you get it):

 

THEFT!

 

Not every rich person was born poor! Crazy, I know!

 

No, but climbing up the socioeconomic latter is possible in capitalism, but isn't in socialism, because everyone is artificially deemed "equal."

 

And what if, by some luck of the draw, their decisions aren't successful? They're not rewarded. Because they're being paid for others.

 

Screw up enough times, you get fired. Plain and simple.

 

You have no comprehension of how economics works, otherwise you wouldn't say something as mind-numbingly dumb as this. So, what, "nothing" was "achieved" in the Soviet Union?

Pain, murder, and suffering were achieved in the USSR. Any economic "advancement" was caused by threats of death.

 

 

I'm tired of it because this is going nowhere. Half of my family is Cuban, so I've heard first-hand accounts of how ****ing awful Communism is. I'm never going to be convinced its good, or even not evil. You think Communism is better, and are absolutely resolute in this conviction. This is, therefore, pointless.

Edited January 24, 2010 by I want teh kotor 3

[lord of flies]

Because the USSR never exiled dissidents to hard labor.

Not every socialist country is the USSR! Amazing!

If you're good enough it is. In a Communist system, however, the opposite is true: talent is punished, and inaptitude is rewarded.

Yes, the Soviet Union survived for 80 years by rewarding inept behavior. They picked all the morons and fired all the talented people. How was their economy able to last 80 years? Magic.

Because, in owning something, you exchanged money for something worth money.

And then, when people work there, you take money from them, by not paying them the full value of their labor. Amazing!

No. I believe in the government getting out of the economy and my life, instead focusing on keeping me safe with a military. By the same token, however, do you really believe in an open dictatorship by the poor and inept?

I believe in an open dictatorship by the general populace, not by the rich and powerful. Nearly half the United States Senate are officially millionaires. Now, I know the Senate ain't exactly democratic, but are about half the states really tiny and full of rich people? No.

No? Here's a theoretical example: Let's say I make $50k. In my neighborhood, there are 6 people who make $25k and two people who make $10k. By socialist logic, we should each obtain the average of our incomes, which is $22k. Therefore, $28k are taken from me. The taking of my property, by others, without my permission, is, by definition (using big, colorful letters to make sure you get it):

 

THEFT!

This isn't how socialism works. I don't know why I have to keep saying this. You should be compensated in proportion to your labor. Work harder, longer or better, get paid more. That simple.

No, but climbing up the socioeconomic latter is possible in capitalism, but isn't in socialism, because everyone is artificially deemed "equal."

A) No, it isn't (both Khruschev and Brezhnev were born in villages and employed as metalworkers in their youth; Gorbachev was born in a peasant family and operated combines before attending Moscow State University), and B) no they aren't.

Screw up enough times, you get fired. Plain and simple.

Screw up once, your paycheck still comes in.

Pain, murder, and suffering were achieved in the USSR. Any economic "advancement" was caused by threats of death.

1984 is not exactly a realistic representation of the Soviet Union, comrade. The Terror was a brief excess (1936-1953, esp. 1936), not the status quo of its entire rule. Death in the gulags was pretty low, except during the Great Patriotic War for obvious reasons.

I'm tired of it because this is going nowhere. Half of my family is Cuban, so I've heard first-hand accounts of how ****ing awful Communism is. I'm never going to be convinced its good, or even not evil. You think Communism is better, and are absolutely resolute in this conviction. This is, therefore, pointless.

Never trust expats about their old country.

[Guard Dog]

Are you even capable of discussing anything else? I mean anything? Music, alchohol, women, pets, hobbies, I mean c'mon. Do you really want another 30+ page thread where we all say the same things? You've already got two! Don't you have ANY other interests?

[lord of flies]

Do you really want another 30+ page thread where we all say the same things?

Since I keep having to remind you all of basic, fundamental precepts of socialism, such as the fact that everybody is not supposed to be totally equal, I guess so!

[Guard Dog]

Do you really want another 30+ page thread where we all say the same things?

Since I keep having to remind you all of basic, fundamental precepts of socialism, such as the fact that everybody is not supposed to be totally equal, I guess so!

You can't even answer that question without getting back into socialisim. You are like some highly interactive Bot. By the way, you never did answer my question a few weeks back, just how long did you manage to last on Free Republic? I'd bet large you are a frequent poster on DU.

 

Anyway, go ahead and talk communisim until you are red in the face ( ), you are not changing anyone's mind. Just my $.02.

[lord of flies]

You can't even answer that question without getting back into socialisim. You are like some highly interactive Bot.

I'm curious how long I will have to keep telling the same 3 people that basic fact about socialism before it is internalized. Think of it as a scientific experiment.

By the way, you never did answer my question a few weeks back, just how long did you manage to last on Free Republic? I'd bet large you are a frequent poster on DU.

Never posted on either.

[Trenitay]

I'm just going to go ahead and say, I think you're all fools! Outright dismissal and blind acceptance are two extremes and never the best decisions.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Do you believe in equality of opportunity?

 

Equality is important in everything, from relationships to socio-economics. Accepting inequality is making resignation into a lifestyle, which we tend to do quite often because it requires little effort.

 

 

Do you believe that no one should profit off another's hard work?

 

Logicly, the profits of a company should belong first and foremost to those who do the work, not the people who do nothing but have their names on an ownership title. Input should match output in terms of actual effort, not spending of funds you did not work to aquire by working in the first place.

[Walsingham]

Lord of the Flies - Communism's answer to the Mormons.

[lord of flies]

I'm just going to go ahead and say, I think you're all fools! Outright dismissal and blind acceptance are two extremes and never the best decisions.

I have come to be a revolutionary socialist with a belief in a planned economy because of my careful consideration of economics and the world around me. I was not born to socialists, I entered it by my own will. It is not blind acceptance, but considered and rational. Just because my views are "radical" does not mean they are "blind."

[Blarghagh]

Never trust expats about their old country.

If we can just shrug off good 'n proper stuff with a handwave like this, I'mma go with "never trust anyone's opinion on the internet because they're just trying to annoy people and don't even believe it themselves".

 

Seriously, you are like some trollish, one-track devil's advocate. I don't think you're even really a socialist - you're just repeating things you heard to see people get pissed.

Edited January 24, 2010 by TrueNeutral

[lord of flies]

Never trust expats about their old country.

If we can just shrug off good 'n proper stuff with a handwave like this

Obviously expats aren't going to give you a open and fair explanation of their home country. Their perspective is going to be wildly one-sided, otherwise they would never have left.

Seriously, you are like some trollish, one-track devil's advocate. I don't think you're even really a socialist - you're just repeating things you heard to see people get pissed.

Great, now a personal attack. Mods?

[Blarghagh]

EDIT: Nevermind. The sooner people stop posting in this thread the better.

Edited January 24, 2010 by TrueNeutral

[lord of flies]

More an observation/comparison than an attack. You're like the webmaster from that old socialist news site, Thenoosepaper. In fact, I'm not convinced you aren't him. Hence the thing about tubgirl pictures, 'cause that's what he/you did.

No, I'm Krezack, remember? I don't even know who you're talking about.

It's the 'never arguing anything other than semantics' thing you do. Sorry, but it ruins any credibility you might have. Definition of this word, definition of that term in this context, etc., but hey, let's just ignore the point.

Where do I do this, exactly? When people make blatantly incorrect statements about socialism, I correct them, but that's not "arguing semantics," it's dealing with misconceptions about the way a socialist society is intended to work.

['GM']

Do you really want another 30+ page thread where we all say the same things?

Since I keep having to remind you all of basic, fundamental precepts of socialism, such as the fact that everybody is not supposed to be totally equal, I guess so!

 

You

[Walsingham]

All you ever do is say how loveliness is socialist. Yet you completely deny that a planned highly controlled economy requires a dictatorial degree of control. That would be blind were it not for the fact that you have on several occasions stated your willingness to see blood flow freely in pursuit - no maintenance - of this utopia. Your argument that the violence would be meted out by local committees and is thereby somehow OK reveals your 'reason' as no more than ivory tower mental flatulence. Trapped flatus caused by excess and importune consumption of large heavy texts.

 

There is no difference between the communist who would ban private capital because it 'causes' violence and the religious fanatic who would ban sex because it does the same. Both 'problems' are fundamental to human behaviour, and attempts to prohibit them are futile and cause pointless suffering.

[lord of flies]

All you ever do is say how loveliness is socialist. Yet you completely deny that a planned highly controlled economy requires a dictatorial degree of control.

Does a planned highly controlled military require a dictatorial degree of control? Does a planned highly controlled police force require a dictatorial degree of control? Does a planned highly controlled mass transit system require a dictatorial degree of control? The proper functioning of a state system requires control, but don't use such loaded words as "dictatorial" just because you love a tiny minority dominating your economic system.

That would be blind were it not for the fact that you have on several occasions stated your willingness to see blood flow freely in pursuit - no maintenance - of this utopia. Your argument that the violence would be meted out by local committees and is thereby somehow OK reveals your 'reason' as no more than ivory tower mental flatulence. Trapped flatus caused by excess and importune consumption of large heavy texts.

All order relies on implied force, and all implied force relies on actual force. Believe what you like, but the capitalist society I live in is hardly bloodless and unstained.

There is no difference between the communist who would ban private capital because it 'causes' violence and the religious fanatic who would ban sex because it does the same. Both 'problems' are fundamental to human behaviour, and attempts to prohibit them are futile and cause pointless suffering.

 

How, exactly, can private capital be "fundamental to human behavior," when for most of human history we did not even have currency?

[I want teh kotor 3]

If you love Communism so much, move to Cuba.