Capitalism & Socialism

[Valsuelm]

Gromnir/Gifted1: You guys could really contribute to this thread if you would stop spamming. Let's just call the spam war a draw.

 

Gromnir needs to use correct English, as well as quote properly. Then he might contribute in a constructive fashion. Half his posts are illegible as they are right now.

 

He seems to be too caught up in his forum persona though. I'm not sure if that's sadder than a troll or not.

[Valsuelm]

And in glorious free capitalist society we are at the mercy of the rich (who control the big bad boogie man “the state”) to work for menial wages to eat food.

 

 

That's called Fascism. It's not the hallmark of a society with a truly free market.

[BruceVC]

 

Gromnir/Gifted1: You guys could really contribute to this thread if you would stop spamming. Let's just call the spam war a draw.

 

Gromnir needs to use correct English, as well as quote properly. Then he might contribute in a constructive fashion. Half his posts are illegible as they are right now.

 

He seems to be too caught up in his forum persona though. I'm not sure if that's sadder than a troll or not.

 

 

I think that's unfair, I admit in the beginning I battled to understand his posts all the time but he makes a lot of sense on certain topics. And he generally takes the time to explain his perspective which I respect

[Gromnir]

Gromnir/Gifted1: You guys could really contribute to this thread if you would stop spamming. Let's just call the spam war a draw.

*nods head sadly*

 

is always sad when the mods can't moderate themselves. 

 

as for our contribution to socialism debate, we will again point to one o' innumerable linked stories related to millionaires.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html

 

"I am a tightwad. That's one of the main reasons I completed a long questionnaire for a crispy $1 bill. Why else would I spend two or three hours being personally interviewed by these authors? They paid me $100, $200, or $250. Oh, they made me another offer--to donate in my name the money I earned for my interview to my favorite charity. But I told them, "I am my favorite charity."

 

is actual a bit misleading given just how generous many millionaires and billionaires is, but is likely true that the folks who have the most also believe they have the most to lose.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[pseudonymous]

1: The government is incredibly incompetent and would make no profits.

 

 

 

2: It would be a brazen act of theft that would kill the stock market since investors wouldn't know which industries are safe from nationalization.

 

3: Why should the government keep down the good actors in the economy. Not all banks were the bad guys, and they deserved a chance to advance in the place of banks like AIG & others. Nationalization is like the bailouts, but even worse. 

 

4: The extreme unconstitutionality of such an act would cause a major national crisis. One far worse than the recession.

 

5: Like all services of the government the new state run banks would be politicized; that can be very destructive.

 

 

1) Government doesn't need to profit, it just needs to pay its debt.

 

2) As opposed to the subsequent global recession where assets weren't seized in the name of the common good and millions of people became homeless? 

 

3) It really sounds like you own stock in these financial institutions.

 

4) The government would be acting well within existing laws to dissolve the corporate charter of any of these institutions and continue their operations as a government entity.  There is actually a stronger argument against the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) then there is against the nationalization of _any_ business.

 

5) Well, as long as you have a bogeyman, we wouldn't want to impact the lifestyles of people that drive Italian sports cars and snort coke off hookers boobs.

[Barothmuk]

That's called Fascism.

I know the U.S is bad, but they're not fascist.

[Gromnir]

 

 

Gromnir/Gifted1: You guys could really contribute to this thread if you would stop spamming. Let's just call the spam war a draw.

 

Gromnir needs to use correct English, as well as quote properly. Then he might contribute in a constructive fashion. Half his posts are illegible as they are right now.

 

He seems to be too caught up in his forum persona though. I'm not sure if that's sadder than a troll or not.

 

 

I think that's unfair, I admit in the beginning I battled to understand his posts all the time but he makes a lot of sense on certain topics. And he generally takes the time to explain his perspective which I respect

 

we has noted in the past that the Gromnir persona is an excellent schmuck detector. folks who wanna complain 'bout the persona instead o' the argument reveal a flaw in their own character rather than ours.  even so, it would be bad if this became a Gromnir thread. would be ironic to see thread get locked for such.

 

on topic: 

 

again from linked article, the millionaires who don't like to loosen the grip on their wealth tend to have some traits in common. education is a particular telling attribute.

 

"As a group, we are fairly well educated. Only about one in five are not college graduates. Many of us hold advanced degrees. Eighteen percent have master's degrees, 8 percent law degrees, 6 percent medical degrees, and 6 percent Ph.D.s."

 

"Only 17 percent of us or our spouses ever attended a private elementary or private high school. But 55 percent of our children are currently attending or have attended private schools."

 

" As a group, we believe that education is extremely important for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren. We spend heavily for the educations of our offspring."

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gfted1]

*nods head sadly*

 

is always sad when the mods can't moderate themselves.

*strokes chin sagely*

 

You misunderstand. From the goodness of my heart, I responded to each of your post. Its just easier to copy / paste the answer than to type it out multiple times.

[Gromnir]

see what we mean? contributing to complete off-topic debates and promoting spam while not willing or capable of self-moderation. am not disappointed as results meet our expectations, but it kinda feels akin to disappointment nevertheless. 

 

ah well, on topic, even china had to bow to the practical value o' capitalism as it sought to modernize the economy. sure, is no capitalist paradise in china, but without capitalist motivation, china would still be almost entire agrarian.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gfted1]

see what we mean? contributing to complete off-topic debates and promoting spam while not willing or capable of self-moderation. am not disappointed as results meet our expectations, but it kinda feels akin to disappointment nevertheless.

Remember Gromnir, it doesn't make you a punk to admit you were wrong.

 

As for socialism, why do beatniks expect the rest of the world to support them?

[Enoch]

What a weird thread.

 

But I guess it was a silly premise to begin with.  There are many many different and nuanced ways for a society to figure out who should work on what, how much, and how should the proceeds be distributed, such that reducing it an "X v. Y" question makes little sense.  You end up with the flood of unrelated anecdotes and partisan talking-points that one sees above.

 

As a default organizing principle, large-scale central planning has been pretty conclusively shown to be less efficient than empowering private enterprize, but even the most laissez-faire of governments do a certain amount of central planning and/or anti-competitive cooperation with business elites.  And all the small decisions that, stitched together, make up what one would call a society's economic system have potentially dangerous unintended consequences, both on the economic and non-economic spheres.  (To pick obvious examples, unregulated capitalists' tendency towards monopoly, and the problems that centrally planned economies have in civil liberties areas.)  

 

Most of the big economies in the world have figured out reasonable answers to these questions, I think.  (With the major exception being economies that are large only because of the volume and value of raw resources they extract.  Wealth owing to an accident of geography doesn't say much about the rigor of one's systems.)  They differ in much the same ways as their underlying cultures differ.  The common elements are that capitalist elements are needed to induce change, growth, and ingenuity, while socialist elements are needed to prevent exploitation and labor strife. 

[Gromnir]

  The common elements are that capitalist elements are needed to induce change, growth, and ingenuity, while socialist elements are needed to prevent exploitation and labor strife. 

we admitted ignored most of the thread... other than observing the title and a couple particular posts, we has had little involvement. that being said, your last point struck a chord. 

 

typical western economies has shifted back and forth between the tensions caused by needs o' capitalism and socialist elements. there is almost invariably a painful gap during which an economy has shifted too far in one direction and before the economy can self correct, significant social and economic problems typical arise. sadly, western democracies makes the correction process a bit slow.

 

china is actual an intriguing counter-example to the traditional western cycle as they is not using democracy to achieve their balancing. oh sure, the fears regarding china as the new global economic superpower is a bit exaggerated, but am admitting more than a little surprise at how effective they were able to make the initial, and seeming insurmountable step from resource producer or agrarian economy to at least a manufacturing economy. sure, they got a long way to go to become a service economy, and the kinda o' manufacturing china does is largely overlooked, but one does wonder how long their economic evolution can progress without democracy. lack o' democracy has significant advantages as quick and rational changes may occur without the aforementioned painful correction process we face here in the west. 

 

"Remember Gromnir, it doesn't make you a punk to admit you were wrong. :thumbsup:"

 

*shakes head sadly*

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 17, 2014 by Gromnir

[Hurlshort]

So we've learned that sharp one is a capitalist, but not a great one?

[Zoraptor]

I have to admit, I find people who believe that the flaws of capitalism are all because of its imperfect implementation and that if it were perfectly implemented everything would be Great as amusing as people* who say that the flaws of communism (or any other -ism really) were all about its imperfect implementation, and that if it were perfectly implemented it would be Great.

 

They're both circular/ sophist arguments- by those metrics any flaw has to be due to implementation, rather than being an inherent problem. The only effect is the rhetorical one that it makes the concept itself impossible to criticise (theoretically, if accepted) since any criticism is aimed at the imperfections and not the perfect concept. But it is pointless outside of rhetoric, because you can do the exact same thing for any concept, as above.

 

*put oby on temporary hiatus and bring back Lord of Flies, just for this thread and as an illustration.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Zoraptor

[Kroney]

 

 

Gromnir/Gifted1: You guys could really contribute to this thread if you would stop spamming. Let's just call the spam war a draw.

Gromnir needs to use correct English, as well as quote properly. Then he might contribute in a constructive fashion. Half his posts are illegible as they are right now.

 

He seems to be too caught up in his forum persona though. I'm not sure if that's sadder than a troll or not.

There's something quite pleasing about the fact that Gromnir's persona is still winding people up sixteen years on. Makes me feel young.

[Enoch]

china is actual an intriguing counter-example to the traditional western cycle as they is not using democracy to achieve their balancing. oh sure, the fears regarding china as the new global economic superpower is a bit exaggerated, but am admitting more than a little surprise at how effective they were able to make the initial, and seeming insurmountable step from resource producer or agrarian economy to at least a manufacturing economy. sure, they got a long way to go to become a service economy, and the kinda o' manufacturing china does is largely overlooked, but one does wonder how long their economic evolution can progress without democracy. lack o' democracy has significant advantages as quick and rational changes may occur without the aforementioned painful correction process we face here in the west.

 

The advantage of democracy in that context is that you can (theoretically) replace your decision-makers if/when they become too incompetent or too corrupt.  To the extent that Chinese cultural practices encourage meritocracy and discourage excessive corruption (or that oligarchic party-committee practices effectively mimic the function of democracy), they may go a generation or two before that problem becomes acute.  Or they may not. 

[Gromnir]

 

china is actual an intriguing counter-example to the traditional western cycle as they is not using democracy to achieve their balancing. oh sure, the fears regarding china as the new global economic superpower is a bit exaggerated, but am admitting more than a little surprise at how effective they were able to make the initial, and seeming insurmountable step from resource producer or agrarian economy to at least a manufacturing economy. sure, they got a long way to go to become a service economy, and the kinda o' manufacturing china does is largely overlooked, but one does wonder how long their economic evolution can progress without democracy. lack o' democracy has significant advantages as quick and rational changes may occur without the aforementioned painful correction process we face here in the west.

 

The advantage of democracy in that context is that you can (theoretically) replace your decision-makers if/when they become too incompetent or too corrupt.  To the extent that Chinese cultural practices encourage meritocracy and discourage excessive corruption (or that oligarchic party-committee practices effectively mimic the function of democracy), they may go a generation or two before that problem becomes acute.  Or they may not. 

 

oh, we get the advantages o' democracy, but am thinking you are ignoring or forgetting another main value. "democracy" in modern western economies started, predictably, as a a benefit o' the folks with property. it has been taken as a bit o' a given that "sustained economic development is supposed to lead to the emergence of democratic institutions and, eventually, democracy through a combination of factors produced by such development."  emerging middle-class, new values, increased education, yadda-yadda. regardless, it has been assumed that the more invested folks become in the economy, the more they will, inexorably, demand a stake in the decision making process.  the push-pull between capitalism and socialist or the kuznets curve or whatever is the nouveau chic way o' describing the inevitable expansion o' the franchise in western democracies has been seen as a near forgone conclusion.  if you don't give your new capitalists democracy, they will eventual take it themselves... or that has been the prevailing wisdom for a Long time.

 

china is different... is culturally different... is Geographically different. is hard to believe, but as enormous as the population is in china, historically, virtual all peoples live along two fertile river valleys. is a single, largely homogeneous culture that has endured autocrats and oligarchs whose dynasties spanned many centuries. such has been the norm in china. "Chinese cultural practices encourage"  oligarchy as much as they does meritocracy.  yadda-yadda.

 

again, am expecting wondering just how far china can go without real democracy. the progress china has made is not near as significant as some suggest, but they do now have a kinda emerging middle-class. is china culturally different enough to endure and continue to grow with a system of government that tends to lead to stagnation? your own role in our system is impossible in modern china, but is largely essential in modern economies. a transactions attorney in china? is that a punchline waiting for a joke? conventional wisdom suggests that china doesn't have the societal, governmental and legal apparatus to make the next step forward economically... 'least not without serious fundamental changes, which is kinda antithetical to what made their initial success possible. 

 

​oh, and am thinking you also underestimate the level o' corruption in chinese government-- is perhaps another cultural norm. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 18, 2014 by Gromnir

[Namutree]

Good god I think I’m talking with a libertarian.

Luckily that system doesn't resemble capitalism. I'll be having a nice salad later using vegetables I grew myself on my own land. Good thing I can own land to grow food on.

Good golly gosh. Wage-slavery, over production, uneven distribution and mass exploitation simply DO NOT EXIST because this seemingly affluent person can grow some ****ing vegetables.

 

Hallelujah.

 

Shame nobody informed the Russians. Could have saved us a lot of trouble.

 

Don't get so upset that I proved you wrong. BTW, the food I DIDN'T have to trade labor for tastes delicious.

[Naurgalen]

Why I don't like capitalism?: It appeals to our animal part, our selfishness, ego and ownership of things. It blinds people to think that money is the end instead of a mean to get the things we really care. It makes us forget that we are SOCIAL animals, and all the progress, evolution and technology we have as humanity its not because 1 "special" individual that "deserves" to be "ultra millionaire" illuminated us. We forget: the teacher he had, his father, his friends, the doctor who cured a illness he had etc...all that made him what he is/was.

 

There are other systems that are better.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Naurgalen

[Naurgalen]

 

Name one.

 

Well, the title of this thread provides one: At its core, socialism is created to satisfy human needs, even if thats not well implemented. Thinking of others as human beings instead of profit-making-things its a beginning.

 

But my real problem is that both system dont endorse that people can be corrupted, specially if they are smart & educated and have no moral / ethical limits. For that problem one solution I thought is a REAL democracy, or in other words a direct one. OFC that would need huge social changes and the people in power would never allow it, but we have internet today, it can totally be done if the system is reorganized.

[Namutree]

 

Yeah, so tell me why is that most of recent genocidal ideologies emerged from socialism (like: Communism, Nazism, Fascism, Maoism etc.) but most if not all the biggest charity organizations and Human Rights organizations emerged in capitalistic countries.

You know why? Because in capitalism humans are recognizable as individuals instead of mass. In socialism there is no such thing as individual, there is mass, society, proletariat, community etc. that's why it's so easy to oppress individuals in socialism.

 

Don't you know Sharp_one? They weren't REAL socialists. Just because they called themselves socialists, had no respect for property, thought on a collective basis rather than individual basis, and always talked smack about capitalism; doesn't mean they're socialists. Don't you know the rule?

 

If it was bad; capitalists did it. Even if the culprits didn't follow capitalist ideology and never claimed to be capitalists. They were capitalists.

[Namutree]

 

 

 

Well, the title of this thread provides one: At its core, socialism is created to satisfy human needs, even if thats not well implemented.

 

No it isn't. Socialism was made to push people around and tell them how to live. See, all the things socialist want is possible in a capitalist society. I don't live too far from a farming co-op where everything is shared, and everyone's needs are met. Anyone can join that co-op, or make their own. Yet it has only 14 members, and their aren't any others around that I'm aware of.

 

Why? Because almost no one WANTS to live that way. Socialists need the government to put a gun to people's head; otherwise they won't do as the socialists want. They'll want to be in control of their own lives; not have to obey an oppressive majority. 

[obyknven]

Socialism it's....

 

When Socialistic France begin intervention into Mali for protecting economic interests of huge French corporations...
When Socialistic Norway financed Neo-Nazi movements in Russian North-West and protested when one of leaders of such movements has been arrested for incitement to ethnic and racial hatred...

 

Sorry guys, but western socialist's lost all credibility, they are:

1. Just opportunists and puppets of Global corporations.

2. Will soon be replaced by Ultra-right movements, history of 30s prove it, without of war against communism they're not needed more for own masters.

Edited September 19, 2014 by obyknven

[Namutree]

Socialism it's....

 

When Socialistic France begin intervention into Mali for protecting economic interests of huge French corporations...

When Socialistic Norway financed Neo-Nazi movements in Russian North-West and protested when one of leaders of such movements has been arrested for incitement to ethnic and racial hatred...

 

Sorry guys, but western socialist's lost all credibility, they are:

1. Just opportunists and puppets of Global corporations.

 

Puppets of global corporations? That's an interesting claim. 

[Naurgalen]

 

Yeah, so tell me why is that most of recent genocidal ideologies emerged from socialism (like: Communism, Nazism, Fascism, Maoism etc.) but most if not all the biggest charity organizations and Human Rights organizations emerged in capitalistic countries.

You know why? Because in capitalism humans are recognizable as individuals instead of mass. In socialism there is no such thing as individual, there is mass, society, proletariat, community etc. that's why it's so easy to oppress individuals in socialism.

 

 

Man if you are going to ****ing genocide you don't just tell that to them when they are going to vote for you. People can say lots of things, but only their actions is what define them. And if you are going to associate Nazism to Socialism you really need to read again you history books. (If you don't know: he was ULTRA nationalist, and that was the problem)

 

At the same time, genocide can be coupled with every political system that existed in the world, here is South America there were many "capitalist" genocides. In fact, in my country, Argentina, in 1976 only by having a friend that was communist (even if you didn't know) it was enough reason to torture or kill you.

 

And the human rights thing is very biased: when the world is 95% capitalist you know, its reasonable most things will happen in that political view just by sheer amount, specially when they are needed. (education, food and healthcare are basic needs that capitalist don't usually cover)

 

 

No it isn't. Socialism was made to push people around and tell them how to live. See, all the things socialist want is possible in a capitalist society. I don't live too far from a farming co-op where everything is shared, and everyone's needs are met. Anyone can join that co-op, or make their own. Yet it has only 14 members, and their aren't any others around that I'm aware of.

 

Why? Because almost no one WANTS to live that way. Socialists need the government to put a gun to people's head; otherwise they won't do as the socialists want. They'll want to be in control of their own lives; not have to obey an oppressive majority. 

 

 

If socialism was made to push people around I can say that capitalism was made so that the aristocracy wont loose all of their power by letting people live in inhuman conditions. So its your choose: you live by the rules of the "oppressive majority" or you live by the rules that a couple of people with lots of power and money dictate. Capitalist freedom is an illusion. Do you think that people that steal or kill to eat had good parents? a good education? that they don't suffer as human beings? That they really choose the ****ty life they are on?

 

Socialism fails just because in time it becomes a dictatorship, with the people in power becoming corrupt. That is why I advocate for a real democracy, where everyone is responsible for himself.