508 replies to this topic

[Futurist1000]

"It may take fundamental change that only a socialist society can bring to avert a major global warming catastrophe."

Really? Is that true. Not according to this article.

Why Socialism Causes Pollution.
Webpage

If anything pollution will get worse under socialism.

[Ganshauk]

Capitalists see humans as competitive, hard working, protaganists.
Socialists see humans as lazy, corruptable, and needing to be regulated so the small guy doesn't get squashed.

What Socialists fail to realize is that in order to regulate humans into being good people you need an authority that is better than human. Unfortunately, government is made of humans. So your whole premise is right out of the window.

Any form of government that is to be successful must take into account humans basic nature and balance it.

Our current republic was doing a pretty damn good job of it until the socialists got in there and started mucking it up.

[william7]

"It may take fundamental change that only a socialist society can bring to avert a major global warming catastrophe."

Really? Is that true.  Not according to this article.

Why Socialism Causes Pollution.
Webpage

If anything pollution will get worse under socialism.

The article you point to doesn't understand the difference between socialism as Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels envisioned it and what it ended up under the dictators that ruled the Soviet Union and China when those countries official ideology was socialism. Most of your socialist and communist parties are quick to point out that the Soviet Union and China were not truly socialist and oppressed their working class under a highly bureaucratized form of state capitalism. They still had a ruling class made up of a privileged elite and still practiced wage slavery under a system of money. Both these institutions are suppose to be done away with and replaced by workers democratically controlling the means of production to satisfy human needs and not for sale or profit as under capitalism. See http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm. If you read this link further, they'll point out that the former U.S.S.R. and China was never really socialist, and, in fact, no country has ever accomplished the feat.

[william7]

Capitalists see humans as competitive, hard working, protaganists.

Not accurate. Capitalist see workers as expendable tools to be exploited in a system of wage slavery where the capitalist is the specially privileged master and the worker is the servant at the bottom of the barrel. Capitalists just don't say this openly in public because of the risk of arousing anger and rebellion.

Socialists see humans as lazy, corruptable, and needing to be regulated so the small guy doesn't get squashed.

Not exactly true. The more advanced socialists see "the small guy", the worker, as needing to be educated so he is able to democratically control or regulate the means of production in the interests of all society. The Socialist Labor Party says:

The SLP's goal is a classless society based on collective ownership and control of the industries and social services, these to be administered in the interests of all society through a Socialist Industrial Union government composed of democratically elected representatives from all the industries and services of the land. Production would be carried on for use instead of profit. The SLP program for achieving this revolutionary change from capitalism to socialism is based on the Marxist tenet that socialism can be achieved only through the classconscious action "of the working class itself."

The core of the SLP program points up the need for classwide political and economic organizations. A primary role of the political organization is to challenge the political apparatus of the capitalist class and its monopoly of state power, while promoting worker classconsciousness and emphasizing the need for organizing working-class strength on the economic field. The objective of economic organization is to unite the workers at the point of production so as to render them capable of taking control of the entire productive process and democratically administering and operating it in society's collective interests.

http://www.slp.org/facts.htm

What Socialists fail to realize is that in order to regulate humans into being good people you need an authority that is better than human. Unfortunately, government is made of humans. So your whole premise is right out of the window.

Very astute observation. This is why I see the absolute necessity of the Bible playing a major role in any future socialist society for it to succeed. The error of the Marxists in history was their atheism and their failure to provide a new understanding of the Scriptures that would support socialism and that would continue to permit the fullest spiritual and characterological development of the people.

Our current republic was doing a pretty damn good job of it until the socialists got in there and started mucking it up.

I think you need to take a closer look at the history of capitalism. Modern capitalism's birth should be enough to make you retract this statement if you're honest. The working conditions in the factories, mills, mines and plantations were horrible. See Karl Marx and the Satanic Mills: Factory Politics Under Early Capitalism in England, the United States, and Russia, by Michael Burawoy. And let us not forget early capitalism's use of chattel slavery right alongside of wage slavery with all the waste and degradation of human life. Capitalism has never been a humane institution with humanitarian goals as its reason for existence - neither in its early stages nor in its modern day form.

[clay]

Not accurate. Capitalist see workers as expendable tools to be exploited in a system of wage slavery where the capitalist is the specially privileged master and the worker is the servant at the bottom of the barrel. Capitalists just don't say this openly in public because of the risk of arousing anger and rebellion.

Capitalists argue for voluntary cooperation. Neither the worker nor the boss are slaves, they are both engaging, voluntarily, in an activity that, most likely, will have a positive, desired outcome for both parties. Saying that capitalists are all lairs who believe otherwise is a little degrading to the debate, don't you think?

I think you need to take a closer look at the history of capitalism. Modern capitalism's birth should be enough to make you retract this statement if you're honest. The working conditions in the factories, mills, mines and plantations were horrible. See Karl Marx and the Satanic Mills: Factory Politics Under Early Capitalism in England, the United States, and Russia, by Michael Burawoy. And let us not forget early capitalism's use of chattel slavery right alongside of wage slavery with all the waste and degradation of human life. Capitalism has never been a humane institution with humanitarian goals as its reason for existence - neither in its early stages nor in its modern day form
.

Question:
Why did those people (voluntarily) move to cities, work in factories, and stay there? Did they just forget that they could return to their (superior?) life on the farm?

The argument for capitalism is and has always been humanitarian. Capitalism is the system that says that humans are intelligent beings capable of making their own choices (choices that are very difficult to predict). Empirically, we've seen free economies flourish. Our modern day form isn't humanitarian?? Would you rather live in America today than anywhere in the world 50 years ago (no internet, no cures for a bunch of diseases, etc)? 100 years ago (life expectancy <50)??

[william7]

Capitalists argue for voluntary cooperation. Neither the worker nor the boss are slaves, they are both engaging, voluntarily, in an activity that, most likely, will have a positive, desired outcome for both parties. Saying that capitalists are all lairs who believe otherwise is a little degrading to the debate, don't you think?

They argue for voluntary cooperation because it's necessary for the image of the corporation and serves as motivational propaganda. Those at the top reap of the hierarchical structure receive the lion's share of the rewards, or material blessings, whereas those at the bottom receive much less and are significantly disadvantaged in life as a result. I don't see capitalism as an honest way of life. I had to quit robbing people; capitalists should too.

Question:
Why did those people (voluntarily) move to cities, work in factories, and stay there? Did they just forget that they could return to their (superior?) life on the farm?

Those wage slaves were forced off the farms in droves because the ruling classes stole their land through economic trickery. They were then forced to sell their labor to the capitalists so they could survive the hard times and pay the special taxes levied on them by corrupt governments working hand in glove with the capitalists to keep the working class down. You need to do a careful study of history written by historians with a concern for the poor and common people to find this information. Have you ever read The Grapes of Wrath, by John Steinbeck?

The argument for capitalism is and has always been humanitarian. Capitalism is the system that says that humans are intelligent beings capable of making their own choices (choices that are very difficult to predict). Empirically, we've seen free economies flourish. Our modern day form isn't humanitarian?? Would you rather live in America today than anywhere in the world 50 years ago (no internet, no cures for a bunch of diseases, etc)? 100 years ago (life expectancy <50)??

Again, you are definitely listening to the propaganda of capitalists and their "hangers on." I would much rather live in an enlightened socialist society that has solved the problems of poverty, crime, and environmental destruction due to capitalist/materialist ways, so everybody can have access to the Internet on an equal footing and be free from diseases due to wrong lifestyle and lack of education. Just because capitalism has refined its techniques and improved conditions for some, but not all, does not make me see it as a solution to all the world's ills or the bringer of Utopia on earth.

[Futurist1000]

I guess the burden is on you elijah3 to show proof that a communist/socialist country has really been successful.
Every communist country has been both poor and a dictatorship. China, Russia and Eastern Europe all tried communism without success. Okay now since communism has such a bad connotation, the word socialism is used instead. However the differences between communism and socialism are fairly superficial. You can call a duck by whatever name you want, but at the end of the day it's still a duck. Venezuela is trying this so called "new" socialism. However the only reason why their country is doing okay is because of the oil money. They have very high inflation and a fiscal policy that could very well run the country into the ground even with the oil. France is another country that has had a socialistic system for a while. However, like most european countries France is having difficulty paying for it. The French have elected Sarkozy specifically to institute more free market reforms (i.e. capitalism). The immigrants there rioted because of the 40% unemployment that is associated with a more socialist economic system.

So if everything has failed, what makes you think you could get it to work? Do you know anything about economics. You seem to have this view that you could create a utopia but this is mostly based on your own feelings instead of any factual information. People have been trying to create utopias with the best of intentions, but most have failed.

"enlightened socialist society that has solved the problems of poverty, crime, and environmental destruction due to capitalist/materialist ways"

This is basically what people like Stalin and Mao Zedong tried to do in the Soviet Union and China. Sure they had the best of intentions, but each killed millions of people. Now I'm sure you will say that because your system would be based on religion it would be better, but atheism isn't the reason that communist/socialist governments have failed. They failed because they don't work.

A socialist society will not solve the problems of poverty, crime and environmental destruction. Socialism has always made people poorer. Communism has had one of the worst environmental track records. I don't think capitalism has any link to crime. Japan is one of the most capitalistic countries yet it has one of the LOWEST crime rates of any country. 64 - 65% of the Japanese are either atheists or agonostics. Yet the country is so safe you could pretty much walk anywhere at night. I've heard stories of people leaving their purse on a bench in a park. When they go to the police they usually can get it back because someone turned it in to the authorities.

[Live Forever]

Find me one economist that doesn't believe in capitalist/free market ideals....

[william7]

I guess the burden is on you elijah3 to show proof that a communist/socialist country has really been successful.

That's easy! None of the countries you mention ever came close to achieving true communism/socialism as Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels envisioned it. This is generally understood to be the case. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism.

So if everything has failed, what makes you think you could get it to work? Do you know anything about economics. You seem to have this view that you could create a utopia but this is mostly based on your own feelings instead of any factual information. People have been trying to create utopias with the best of intentions, but most have failed.

Creating a fully functioning communist/socialist society is a new idea in history that will take a little more time to become fully successful. How long did it take man to learn how to fly? http://en.wikipedia...._flying_machine. Why should communism be any different than flight?

Did you know there are those who say that communism is scientifically inevitable? See http://64.233.169.10...clnk&cd=5&gl=us. The Bible also prohecies the inevitabilty of communism. I would try to explain this, but I'm under a restriction that prohibits me from making religious arguments outside of the religion and free speech forums.

Once large numbers of people come to the realization that substantially long lifespans and immortality depend on the strongest possible form of communism, there will be no stopping it.

This is basically what people like Stalin and Mao Zedong tried to do in the Soviet Union and China. Sure they had the best of intentions, but each killed millions of people. Now I'm sure you will say that because your system would be based on religion it would be better, but atheism isn't the reason that communist/socialist governments have failed. They failed because they don't work.

Wrong! Had these people been able to reinterpret the Scriptures to support socialism and been able to fully dismantle all the false religious institutions that were misconstruing the Scriptures, they would've been successful. The right understanding of the Scriptures would've accomplished the thing.

A socialist society will not solve the problems of poverty, crime and environmental destruction. Socialism has always made people poorer. Communism has had one of the worst environmental track records. I don't think capitalism has any link to crime. Japan is one of the most capitalistic countries yet it has one of the LOWEST crime rates of any country. 64 - 65% of the Japanese are either atheists or agonostics. Yet the country is so safe you could pretty much walk anywhere at night. I've heard stories of people leaving their purse on a bench in a park. When they go to the police they usually can get it back because someone turned it in to the authorities.

As I've already pointed out, no country has ever accomplished a fully functioning communist/socialist society without a ruling class and without wage slavery. There has, however, been a few successful models of socialism on a small scale. Israel's kibbutz project was considered the world's best example of voluntary socialism in action for a time. There are some who continue to do research and keep the ideal alive. See, for example, http://www.ic.org/icsa/about.html.

I believe Japan has done well with capitalism because of the devastation of WW II and the occupation by the United States. The people were forced to pull themselves up by the bootstrap as they say and rebuild their world after a major defeat. People sometimes do real well after a major setback in life. They become bound and determined to succeed. The Japanese have a strong work ethic and have a strong respect for family and elders that has contributed to their success too.

From what I've read, the Japanese haven't created a perfect Utopian society without social ills. They have problems with pollution, motor vehicle accidents, disease, crime, substance abuse, prostitution, gambling, etc. like any other country. And look at their increase in mental illness as a result of adopting Western values and their very high suicide (violence against oneself) rate. How long before Japan's capitalist boon starts its decay and decline with a much greater worsening of social conditions?

[william7]

Find me one economist that doesn't believe in capitalist/free market ideals....

Those economists who believe in socialism as opposed to capitalism are called socialists. The ones in business and government go by the title economist.

[Live Forever]

Find me one economist that doesn't believe in capitalist/free market ideals....

Those economists who believe in socialism as opposed to capitalism are called socialists. The ones in business and government go by the title economist.

Actually it is people who have a degree in economics that are called economists. There are about as many economists that don't believe in free markets/capitalism as biologists who don't believe in evolution.

[Futurist1000]

Creating a fully functioning communist/socialist society is a new idea in history that will take a little more time to become fully successful.  How long did it take man to learn how to fly?  Why should communism be any different than flight?

Uh yeah people used to fly in BIPLANES but now we fly in JETS. Why is that? Because JETS are SUPERIOR to BIPLANES. Just like CAPITALISM is superior to SOCIALISM. Capitalism has replaced Socialism in China, Russia and Eastern Europe because it is SUPERIOR.

None of the countries you mention ever came close to achieving true communism/socialism as Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels envisioned it.

So we're supposed to follow something that someone wrote over ONE HUNDRED years ago for our fiscal policy. That's pretty ludicrous. It's like having students study alchemy in school instead of chemistry.

Also, I think Marx and Engels specifically state in their book that they thought religion was a symptom of the capitalist system and could be cured by socialism. Meaning that they are against religion and they thought that socialism could replace it. That is how they "envisioned" socialism as you put it. Marx and Engels basically advocate atheism. That is the ORIGINAL version that Marx and Engels "envisioned".

May I also add that "envisioned" is just that, Marx and Engels imagination. The book the Communist Manifesto is a piece of fiction. Capitalism entails empircally driven economics. Things are actually tested in the market. When something works better than something else then that new policy is adapted. Capitalism is not some creaking dinosaur composed of 200 year old policies. It is dynamic, continuously refining policies and adapting to new market conditions. The main ideas of socialism are over a HUNDRED YEARS OLD. Some of them are fairly nebulous at that. I read that most people in Venezuela are unclear of what 21st socialism is. Most socialist will throw around "capitalist class" and "control the means of production". But as a fiscal policy if your economics book based on socialism has NO economics equations NONE, then it is a little suspect. Most socialistic websites use the same tired old language. Economics is very counterintuitive. Have you ever seen that Seinfeld episode where George does the opposite of his instincts and then everything starts going his way (he suddenly is able to get a job, get a girlfriend etc.). That is, in a way, what economics is like. A lot of things that sound like a good idea (price controls being one example) are actually very bad economically. Economics can be very counterintuitive and things that the average person THINKS would be good for the economy are actually BAD. A populist leader like Chavez does things that he THINKS are good for the economy instead of relying on empiracle FACTS.

"As I've already pointed out, no country has ever accomplished a fully functioning communist/socialist society without a ruling class and without wage slavery."

That's because it doesn't work. It's been tried in numerous forms and all have proven failures. North Korea is communist and has a gdp per capita of $1,800 vs. $24,500 for capitalist South Korea. Cuba's economy is a basket case. Russia, China and Eastern Europe all have eschewed communism in favor of capitalism. Western Europe has tried a mix of capitalism and socialism. These countries are democratic and I would consider them to be fairly free. They are totally different than the authoritarian systems and are probably closer to what Marx described. However even these countries are begining to turn away from socialism simply because it doesn't work very well as a system.

SOCIALISM FAILURE IN SWEDEN
"Last September, a political earthquake shook the Riksdag (parliament) here in Stockholm when Swedish voters decided to cast off former Prime Minister Goran Persson’s venerable Social Democratic government in favor of a more market-oriented political alliance led by Moderate Party leader, Fredrik Reinfeldt. "

SOCIALISM FAILURE IN FRANCE
"On May 6, 2007, millions of French people gathered outside to celebrate the victory of Nicolas Sarkozy – the Fifth Republic’s new president. As a French citizen, who has lived in France for 20 years, I can tell you why these people were celebrating: they were happy because they felt socialism was over. Socialist Party leader Segolene Royal lost and now the party is falling party. Everybody within the Socialists tried to criticize Royal’s performance and they are trying to say Sarkozy’s victory is her fault. "

Welfare (a form of socialism) tends to promote bad behaviors. If you reward people for not working, not getting married and not being responsible then those behaviors will tend to INCREASE. The welfare state is one of the reasons that illigitemacy is so high. Ever since welfare reform was enacted many of these bad behaviors have DECREASED. Welfare REFORM was considered a success because it required people to WORK instead of just receiving HANDOUTS.

WELFARE REFORM
"The consequences of welfare reform have been dramatic. As expected, welfare rolls (the number of people receiving payments) dropped significantly (57%) in the years since passage of the bill. Substantially larger declines in welfare rolls were posted by many states, and even big city-dominated Illinois achieved an 86% reduction in welfare recipients. [MacDougal 2005] Child poverty rates for African American families have dropped the sharpest since statistics began to be tallied in the 1960s; "

Britain has not had welfare reform, and their problems have been increasing. In England and Wales 41 percent of new babies are born to unmarried women. This compares to 23 percent of all babies born to non-Hispanic white women in 2002 in the U.S. See the following link for more info on the ills of the welfare state.
THE WELFARE STATE WE'RE IN

Did you know there are those who say that communism is scientifically inevitable? The Bible also prohecies the inevitabilty of communism. I would try to explain this, but I'm under a restriction that prohibits me from making religious arguments outside of the religion and free speech forums.

Uh I don't know about that. For one thing communism has always been atheistic. Have you actually read the Communist Manifesto? I don't see how the Bible could possibly advocate something that is inherently atheistic. Another thing is that MANY religious people would disagree with your characterization of communism/socialism as being sanctioned in the Bible. This country has fought wars to prevent the spread of communism. There are many very religious people who strongly dislike communism and this does not necessarily have to do with it being atheistic either.

If anything I would think that socialism/communism would be more associated with the DEVIL than with God. First by the fact that every country that has ever tried socialism has usually become more atheistic. The population of Europe has a more socialistic system than the U.S. However unlike communist governments in the past the people of Europe are free to practice whatever religion they choose. In spite of this freedom, the people in Europe are considerably less religious than the people in the United States. Could this be due to socialism? I don't know, but the U.S. has one of the highest proportion of people who go to church regularly out of the more developed countries and it is also the most capitalistic.

So what does socialism usually entail. There is usually redistribution of wealth from some people to other people. Your interpretation is that you would redistribute wealth from the "capitalist class" and give it to the poor voluntarily somehow. Socialism/communism/welfare usually entails forcible transfer of wealth by taxes or by a direct service and then a person's money/time is then given to people who didn't earn it.

Here's a question for ya. What supernatural being would 1) promote people to be lazy, 2) spread a system based on forcible transfer of wealth that is akin to slavery 3) devise an economic system that has done more to spread atheism than anything else in the history of mankind. On that last point you have to admit that Socialism/Communism has lead to increased atheism in countries like Russia, China, Eastern Europe and Cuba even if you don't agree with the other points. Nothing that you have advocated about your "new socialism" is any different from what has already been tried in the past.

If you are religious and you want to help people out, that is called CHARITY. That is what the Bible advocates. You can give away 90% of the money you earn if you want to. Socialism is tempting, but you should really be questionable of any system that sounds utopian. If there is such a being as the devil, I'm am sure he must love socialism because it is able to decieve people so easily and it seems to have the ability to promote his agenda very well.

You might want to check out this thread at the Rapture-Ready forum website. They are discussing socialism too and some of the people there have some pretty good arguments against it. I presume that they are religious if they are talking on that forum.

Socialism Thread at Rapture Ready

Edited by hrc579, 23 July 2007 - 03:42 AM.

[william7]

Uh yeah people used to fly in BIPLANES but now we fly in JETS. Why is that? Because JETS are SUPERIOR to BIPLANES. Just like CAPITALISM is superior to SOCIALISM. Capitalism has replaced Socialism in China, Russia and Eastern Europe because it is SUPERIOR.

This is nothing but a purely biased and propagandistic statement here. Tell me what you do for a living and what your financial worth is? Is your family wealthy or into politics?

Also, I think Marx and Engels specifically state in their book that they thought religion was a symptom of the capitalist system and could be cured by socialism. Meaning that they are against religion and they thought that socialism could replace it. That is how they "envisioned" socialism as you put it. Marx and Engels basically advocate atheism. That is the ORIGINAL version that Marx and Engels "envisioned".

True. That's why true communism was never achieved. Had they been able to see the wisdom of the Scriptures they could have established a workable form of communism that would have been a blessing to humanity. The human condition is a much more complex matter than they were able to see.

That's because it doesn't work. It's been tried in numerous forms and all have proven failures.

Did you read my Wikipedia link to Communism, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism, where it says:

"The communist society Marx envisioned emerging from capitalism has never been implemented, and it remains theoretical; Marx, in fact, commented very little on what communist society would actually look like. However, the term "Communism", especially when it is capitalized, is often used to refer to the political and economic regimes under communist parties that claimed to embody the dictatorship of the proletariat."

Do you agree or disagree with this statement? May be communism doesn't work because it has never been tried before on a large scale.

Western Europe has tried a mix of capitalism and socialism. These countries are democratic and I would consider them to be fairly free. They are totally different than the authoritarian systems and are probably closer to what Marx described. However even these countries are begining to turn away from socialism simply because it doesn't work very well as a system.

But you must agree that a mixture of capitalism and socialism is not communism. It's something else altogether.

Uh I don't know about that. For one thing communism has always been atheistic. Have you actually read the Communist Manifesto? I don't see how the Bible could possibly advocate something that is inherently atheistic. Another thing is that MANY religious people would disagree with your characterization of communism/socialism as being sanctioned in the Bible. This country has fought wars to prevent the spread of communism. There are many very religious people who strongly dislike communism and this does not necessarily have to do with it being atheistic either.

Have you ever heard of Christian communism? See http://en.wikipedia....stian_communism. In Crises In European History, by Gustav Bang, at http://www.slp.org/p...crises_bang.pdf. the author, an atheist Marxist, says on page 23 that the Christian communism practiced by the early Christian Church was:

"... the communism of property and consumption, the communistic form of society which was the natural expression of the social longings of the ancient proletariat, and which in the first Christian congregations was not only proclaimed but practiced."

And on page 25 he says:

"And even today the accounts given in the “Acts” are condemnatory of the hypocrisies of our time, of the hypocrites who endeavor to show, Bible in hand, the right and justification for private property, whereas no socialist agitator has used stronger language against nor more mercilessly denounced this right than did Christ and his disciples."

I don't know, but the U.S. has one of the highest proportion of people who go to church regularly out of the more developed countries and it is also the most capitalistic.

Because they go to church regularly doesn't mean they're practicing true Christianity as Jesus taught it and the early Christian Church practiced it. Some teach that there is a counterfeit Christianity being passed off by Satan as the real thing. See http://www.tomorrows...item=1140203084.

You might want to check out this thread at the Rapture-Ready forum website. They are discussing socialism too and some of the people there have some pretty good arguments against it. I presume that they are religious if they are talking on that forum.

Thanks for this link. But always remember there is a big difference between Marxist communism which atheistic and Christian communism which should always rest firmly on the Scriptures. Checkout my thread entitled Christian communism, at http://www.imminst.o...=170&t=15317&s=, for more info and ask me any questions you have there.

[Futurist1000]

I knew I wouldn't be able to convince you about socialism. Though I do have a recommendation for you. If you really want to convince other people, it would probably be better not to use the word communism (or even socialism for that matter). For many people these words have a negative connotation. Maybe you could use cooperative, or "caring community" or something like that. Using the term "Christian Communism" isn't going to win over a lot of converts. The term "Christian Communism" is a little bit oxymoronic too, it would almost be like saying "Christian Atheist".

What you want to do is have a christian community where people help each other out and care for one another. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with communism. All you basically want to do is get a group of similarly minded religious people who will put the well being of others in front of the well being of themselves. Isn't that right? You just want to get together a group of unselfish people. It doesn't really matter if your community was capitalist or communist assuming all of the people were at a similar level of unselfishness and religiosity where they would generously help out others.

[AdamSummerfield]

After discussing my views to others, apparently I'm a socialist, I don't know very much about socialism, but once I read into it I'm sure I'll find problems with it.
I dislike capitalism, I found that out when reading about how pharmaceuticals work.
Pharmaceuticals are a business, since as they are more concerned with profits than manufacturing a functional medicine.
Another reason I have found capitalism to be corruptive is it's treatment of the environment.
The central reason oil is so profitable is because there is such thing as commercial profit. Oil makes a lot of money, and the companies that deal with it are more concerned with profits than the Earth's survival.
(The real answer in my opinion to environmental conservation is advanced solar power. I also obviously support the use of oil in producing medicines and materials.)

So I've been told I'm more of a socialist than a capitalist. However I wish for a world without profit (in the form of money).

[Cyberbrain]

I prefer a balance of socialism and capitalism underscored by democracy [thumb]

[scottl]

However I wish for a world without profit (in the form of money).

What will be the motivating force for people to do things? You expect advances in technology, healthcare, basic science to be driven ALL by altruism? You expect people to bust their ass and work 80-100 hours plus/week and not benefit from it?

By all means help...the poor, people less fortunate...but there has to be a limit (don't ask me where to draw the line). But taking away the incentive for people to work hard and reward laziness is silly. The much discussed "entitlement mentality" of younger people (least in the US) today is a perfect example. And if you have not had to work for a living and support yourself how can you comment intelligently on this?

[AdamSummerfield]

However I wish for a world without profit (in the form of money).

What will be the motivating force for people to do things? You expect advances in technology, healthcare, basic science to be driven ALL by altruism? You expect people to bust their ass and work 80-100 hours plus/week and not benefit from it?

By all means help...the poor, people less fortunate...but there has to be a limit (don't ask me where to draw the line). But taking away the incentive for people to work hard and reward laziness is silly. The much discussed "entitlement mentality" of younger people (least in the US) today is a perfect example. And if you have not had to work for a living and support yourself how can you comment intelligently on this?

What I mean by no profit is, every commodity/service costs to purchase exactly what it cost to produce and distribute.
By no means would there be no luxuries, people would still be able to purchase goods and luxuries and some would have larger properties than others, it depends on one's job.

- Sezarus

[bgwowk]

What I mean by no profit is, every commodity/service costs to purchase exactly what it cost to produce and distribute.
By no means would there be no luxuries, people would still be able to purchase goods and luxuries and some would have larger properties than others, it depends on one's job.

The crucial question is who decides the price of goods? If you produce something, do you want the right to decide under what circumstances you will part with it? Or do you want people with guns pointed at you (i.e. police force, jail) to take the products of your labour at their discretion to use and distribute as they see fit?

Capitalism simply means a society organized around voluntary association and voluntary exchange of value. In a capitalist society, people are free to associate with others to make business that produce values that are voluntarily exchanged with others, free to mutually agree on the manner of the exchange, and even free to selflessly contribute value on Elijah's Christian Commune if that's what they want to do. In a socialist society, people with guns tell everyone else what to do. Be careful what you wish for.

[AdamSummerfield]

The crucial question is who decides the price of goods?  If you produce something, do you want the right to decide under what circumstances you will part with it?  Or do you want people with guns pointed at you (i.e. police force, jail) to take the products of your labour at their discretion to use and distribute as they see fit?

In similarity to socialism, it would be best to have the government regulating the production of goods, and the price decided by parameters set by the government, such as, for example: "cents per kilometre of travel" and based on other factors such as "Workers hours per week", if it's a primary industry (mining, farming, oil rigging).
Your produce isn't yours it's the government's and they decide the price.

- Sezarus

[Athan]

The crucial question is who decides the price of goods?  If you produce something, do you want the right to decide under what circumstances you will part with it?  Or do you want people with guns pointed at you (i.e. police force, jail) to take the products of your labour at their discretion to use and distribute as they see fit?

In similarity to socialism, it would be best to have the government regulating the production of goods, and the price decided by parameters set by the government, such as, for example: "cents per kilometre of travel" and based on other factors such as "Workers hours per week", if it's a primary industry (mining, farming, oil rigging).
Your produce isn't yours it's the government's and they decide the price.

- Sezarus

Capitalist command economy.

Next thing you notice in those types of economies is that the government provides you your house, your career (your interests don't matter) and generally your entire life - once again, no motivation to work hard.

A capitalist mixed or market economy provides the motivation, with the mixed capitalist economy one of the most advanced economics models to date - it provides the motivation and the ideas coupled with regulations and a safety net should your business go down the tubes.

As for working 80-100 hours a week with no money for motivation...it depends what I'm working on. If I'm provided with my food and water and necessities and some things I want now and again and I'm working on something hi-tech like optical retina projection, physical cosmology etc. I would have no problem. I'd benefit intellectually and it gives me my sense of...zen (for the lack of a better term). It really comes down to interest, but the issue with this is that most people tend to not know what they want - so they say they want money and work at a desk job their entire life.

[william7]

In a socialist society, people with guns tell everyone else what to do

What you're describing is a dictatorship or police state and not an egalitarian socialist society where crime, violence, and government use of force has been abolished or transcended. And, you must remember, capitalism produces a pretty nasty police state too. Just take a close look at the increase in police forces, court systems, and prisons in the USA. Not only is the crime problem severely aggravated by capitalism, you even have entrepreneurs clearly capitalising off the whole miserable mess in the prison industry with callous disregard for reducing crime rates and rehabilitating criminals. See http://en.wikipedia....ustrial_complex.

You may say the cryonics capitalists you do business with are not guilty of any wrongdoing. I can't be the judge of that. But, if I was you, I would definitely be looking towards the day of establishing cryonics facilities in a truly egalitarian socialist society seriously dedicated to longevity.

Welcome to the Jungle!

[bgwowk]

What you're describing is a dictatorship or police state and not an egalitarian socialist society where crime, violence, and government use of force has been abolished or transcended.

What you describe is voluntary communal living. If you truly disavow coercion as a means to your end, you do your ideas a disservice by calling them socialism.

[bgwowk]

Your produce isn't yours it's the government's and they decide the price.

If my effort, my time, and my imagination are not mine to trade as I choose, what is mine?

[william7]

If you truly disavow coercion as a means to your end, you do your ideas a disservice by calling them socialism.

You're right, the term socialism is greatly misused and abused. When I use the term socialism, I mean it in a strict Marxist sense of the word where private property and money is completely abolished and everything is shared. No privileged elite can exist under these conditions as did in the former Soviet Union. From my understanding of history, no country proclaiming itself socialist/communist has ever reached the level where no privileged elite - utilizing a coercive police apparatus and wage slavery - exists. It's going to take a highly advanced level of true democracy and true Christianity to reach the goal in my opinion.

I'm glad you're thinking of these things Dr. Wowk. There's hope for you yet.

[AdamSummerfield]

Your produce isn't yours it's the government's and they decide the price.

If my effort, my time, and my imagination are not mine to trade as I choose, what is mine?

We are not on the same page, what I mean is: You apply for a job vacancy within the government, then you work for the government. The only people working 'for themselves' would be perhaps artists.
What is yours? Your earnings are yours.

[Futurist1000]

Here's a few arguments in favor of capitalism. Not a completely original creation by me, I just don't have the time to find the original sources. It's more of a collection overall of several different viewpoints that may give people a different perspective. Reading the Selfish Gene might help to facillitate the understanding of this argument, but it is an unecessary prerequisite.

For one thing capitalism does create disparities in wealth, but this in an of itself is not necessarily indicative of something sinister. Here's an example.

Let's say for simplicity sake that you live in a town with a population of 1001 people. Let's also assume to start out with, each person has 10 dollars. Now let's say that one person decides to put on a piano concert and charges a dollar per person for an entrance fee. Let's also say that everybody in town decides to pay the dollar in order to see the concert. So what happens when the concert is over? You end up having a huge imbalance in wealth where one person has 1010 dollars and everyone else has only 9 dollars. This can appear unfair, but in reality it isn't. The people in the town willingly paid the money in order to recieve a service. This is in essence what happens in capitalism.

In capitalism you have companies and employees. Each employee seeks to maximize his benefit. The employee is selfish in the sense that he wants to make the most amount of money for the least amount of work. The company conversely is also an entity that wants to pay its employee the lowest amount of money, while getting the most amount of work from that employee. The company in essence is just as "selfish" as the employee. However in a capitalist system, you also have other companies competing with each other. So if an employee thinks he isn't getting enough compensation for his work, he can go work at another company. If a company thinks an employee is not doing enough work for them, the company can fire them. So capitalism, sometimes, can look cruel when in reality it is able to keep both employee's and company's inherent selfishness in check. To try to eliminate the "means of production" isn't possible seeing as most wealth is created by people. Even machines still ultimately require human operators to keep them running. People tend to attribute capitalism as being selfish but that is not the case. It's human nature that is selfish. Capitalism is one of the few systems that can actually circumvent that selfishness and improve people's financial outcomes overall.

Here is the problem with socialism. Now taxes can end up benefiting an individual if they are put to uses that are directly applicable to the taxed person's wellbeing. Roads, water, etc. are all benefits of living in a society. However there comes a point when taxes become too high and end up being a burden on a person. An example of this would be the welfare state in Europe. What happens in welfare? There are certain qualifications you must have to be on welfare. Usually poor or disabled. Because people want to maximize the amount of money they get by doing the least amount of work, this type of system encourages bad outcomes. For one thing, it encourages the poor to immigrate to a welfare state. We can see this in Europe where there is a large immigrant population who is disproportionately on welfare. Since wealthier people are taxed at a high rate, it is in their own interests to move to another country with lower taxes. Again the wealthier are "selfish" only in the sense that they want to keep the greatest amount of their own money for the least amount of work. People will utilize welfare, as well for selfish reasons in order to maximize their own benefit. They also want to get the most amount of money for the least amount of work. The welfare state allows them to have a better life on someone elses money. It also encourages people to work below their capabilities seeing as the welfare state provides for them.

Communism is similar. We can see what has happened in most communist countries. Significantly less wealth is produced overall because people do not have any incentive to work. They will naturally attempt to do the least amount of work when wealth is evenly redistributed by the government. Another thing is that in communism you have a single government entity employing everyone. The government is again "selfish" in the sense that it wants to give its own workers the least amount of money possible for the most amount of work. We can see this type of outcome happening in Cuba where doctors make around 20 dollars a month. Thus there is no competition so the selfishness of humans and the government is allowed to run unchecked. However, since everyone is equal it may appear more "fair" than capitalism but people are worse off overall because less wealth is produced.

Thus as a government, socialism/communism is not sustainable because it goes against the laws of nature. You can't expect people to selflessly work for others against their will. This is why I believe that this type of government has failed in the past, and will fail if it is attempted on any scale. A government is ultimately composed of people. My main thing to take away from this it is not necessarily capitalism or socialism that is selfish, but human nature.

Edited by hrc579, 10 September 2007 - 08:44 PM.

[inawe]

"Daddy, can you tell me what are capitalism and socialism?"
Where did you get that?
"Joey's dad is a teacher and told him ..."
I thought there was something funny about that guy. Well, socialism, uhm... People with no moral values or believe in God are socialists. God fearing people are in favor of pure capitalism.

"Can you give me some examples daddy?"
Well, let's take the mortgage crisis. A lot of people cannot pay the mortgage and are losing their houses. Some people are proposing for the government to help those people to pay and keep their houses. This is socialism, terrible. The government shouldn't intervene in the economy to help anybody.
There is a much better way. The mortgage brokers who sold the problematic mortgages, sale the mortgages to a small local bank. Then they are sold to a bigger national bank. This bank puts together the mortgages together with other stuff and creates instruments. These instruments are then collaterals for investments by important companies like Bear Stearns. All of these keeps our economy moving.

"But daddy, I just saw on TV that the government is intervening so Bear Sterns wont go under?"
That's good capitalism. The government cannot allow such a big company to collapse.
"I don't understand this daddy ..."
Shut up and go pray so God will forgive you.

[Dominov]

Let's set up a little background: Economic systems are independent of political systems.


An economic system is something like "the market," capitalism, communism, socialism, and other systems to distribute resources.
A political system is something like "the people," meritocracy, democracy, dictatorships, monarchy, and other systems to maintain order.


You can have a capitalist monarchy, a capitalist democracy, a capitalist meritocracy, a capitalist anything. You can also have a communist monarchy, a communist democracy, a communist meritocracy, a communist anything. THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE.


Yes, communism/socialism mandates control of means of production, but that can be accomplished under any system. Really. It can. Democracy mandates freedom of speech, but that freedom can still be available in communism.
As a note, realize that this means communism and socialism are in fact identical. Since they're both merely economic systems which involve control of the means of production centrally, whether under the government or "the people," there are practically no differences.

Now. Communism/socialism fails inevitably because it relies wholly on a incorruptible political system. I suppose they would be feasible if you ever found an incorruptible political system, IE a benevolent AI dictatorship, but let's pretend you don't. Also, there's the whole "you're not free" thing.

Capitalism/"the market" fails inevitably because it relies wholly on an incorruptible populace. Well, okay, not really. It more fails inevitably because of oppression of the worker, as well as assuming people are intelligent and aware enough to stop buying bad products. That hasn't happened yet because it only started recently, as well as capitalism being more decentralized, strongman oriented, and uncaring for the people.

"Oh no Dominov, whatever shall we do? What with the collapse of our economy at hand, how will we survive this disaster?"
Ahaha, never fear. Third way economic philosophy is here!

Simply put, it goes like this: Communism in the capitalist free market.

1. The government establishes state-owned companies in all industries
2. What with the immense backing power of the government behind them and not having to pay taxes, they quickly outcompete other companies. Or slowly outcompete other companies.
3. This continues for a long while, the state slowly gaining more ground with the aid of taxes.
4. at about ~80% control, taxation can safely be abolished without worry of collapse of control. The state owned companies now provide all needed government revenue.
5. Economic regulation laws (besides exploitation laws prevent slavery, oppression, bad working conditions, and suchlike) can also be abolished. There's no need to worry about monopolies anymore! Seeing as it's okay if the government is the monopoly.
6. So now the government is the only big company operating in our hypothetical country. But wait! Marty McMotivated is suffering the effects of [GOVERNMENT FAILURE] in [PLACE]! Whatever will he do?
7. Marty starts a nifty new thing, called "private enterprise." He begins to provide [SERVICE] to other inhabitants of [PLACE].
8. Well, Marty sure is successful! He begins taking on staff and opens up another [BUILDING] in nearby [OTHER PLACE].
9. Wow, Marty! You control the providing of [SERVICE] to the whole of [REGION]! Fantastic! Private enterprise has taken over where the state-owned corporations failed! And even better, you and your compatriots in other industries are ready to take up the slack whenever the government companies falter!
10. Besides Marty McMotivated's capitalist co-operation with the semi-communist government, the vast amount of income that the government now receives allows for tons and tons and tons of aid and projects, independent of the government monopoly. And without even any taxation! Amazing!
11. Luckily, if the government monopoly ever does falter, tax can simply be reinstated, at first only on the rich like Marty, but eventually tax will return to previous levels as private ownership takes up slack during the government's little dry spell.
12. ????
13. Profit!


So overall, you get all the freedom of capitalism with the government aid of communism. A win-win situation! Hooray!

[Cody]

Funny how most socialist countries topple to the ground and people still believe they're reliable.