About a hundred years ago there was not a single nation on earth that could not e called capitalist, today there is not a single major nation that could be called capitalist and certainly no first world ones, the US may be the closest thing to it and it is very much a mixed system, most of the worlds population lives under self declared socialist or communist governments and mixed systems become less capitalist every single day.
The new age is one of socialist mixed systems, those are the nations thriving in terms of economic growth (Turkmenistan, India, Mongolia, China, Argentina, Peru etc. etc.) and in terms of quality of life (Scandinavia, Australia, New Zealand etc.).
This is the lasting type of change, driven by social attitudes and democracy rather than dictatorship and violence. In another hundred years laissez faire capitalism will be gone forever.
-says whoooo yooo and yer crystal Ball?
You seem to have left out a few. Countries like Greece and France, or even Russia - those just a little further toward their ultimate destiny as countries where government takes on the individuals responsibility. Such as support of the individual.
Sorry I am probably being slow but I don't understand quite what you mean. Would you mind clarifying?
He said ... Greece, France and Russia are becoming closer to supporting and taking responsibility for the lives of its citizens. The citizens will work for the government and the government will take care of the citizens. It will be good for both the people and the government.
Should we loose the Constitution? Will there be any place for it in the new era?
tick tock tick tock... took you long enough to get back here... I' ve been making my poster and everything, waiting for you! Yoo Hoo... Should we loose the Constitution or not... what say you, oH FisT?
I am a big fan of the constitution if anything I think it needs to be strengthened and expanded, just like Orwell I am a cautious socialist, I believe in democratic change and a fundamental part of ensuring a system does not become tyrannical is a robust constitution.
O.K... I am cautious too...
so, what kind of strengthening and expanding? Off the top of your head. what is a "robust" Constitution actually based on?
I think the American constitution is a great foundation for a constitution but it does not (in my opinion) do enough, guaranteeing equality regardless of gender, race, religion and sexuality is an important step, people, even smart people make dumb decisions during tough times (a perfect example in the US would be the jailing of Japanese Americans during WW2) we need securities against that sort of error occurring again.
The Japanese has a constitution similar to ours . Do you think they are doing OK with their government?
I have a strict policy that I don't comment on things I don't know and unfortunately I don't know enough about Japanese government to talk on that subject.
How do you know about Australia and Scandinavia
Sorry to have to contradict you Josak but Orwell was an informer of the left. He was not a Socialist,
I disagree with you, Capitalism has changed face and the governments in India and other countries are continuing with mixed economy but performance is poor. We need public, private, cooperative sectors and this may the level playing field, PPP(public-private partnership) is popular in India because government machinery is inefficient so we prefer PPP. India is in transition phase and can not compare with matured western economies and set up.Capitalism mixed with feudalism then it opposes merit and democracy.
Capitalism inclusive corporate democracy then it means something.
thank you .
Socialism mixed is a hoax since usually the economy is capitalistic with a stipend to the people. The real change will come from Southern America with presidents like Kirchner, Chavez, Correa... where a new socialism is applied.
Capitalist, socialist, communist or any form of economic model has a primary function of distribution of wealth produced among its stakeholder (citizens, permanent residents). Its secondary function is to exert some kind of control over stake holders through the government so that system remains stable. Government in both system tries to guarantee a minimum level of resource share regardless of efforts made by any individual stakeholder via welfare schemes.
Capitalism is a system of trial and error where market forces try to distribute wealth and government provides a framework to ensure the smooth function of market forces. This system allows lots of wastage of economic resources which otherwise could have been utilized to improve lives of its stake holders.
Socialist or communist model tries to map the total need of the economy and reward the stakeholders based on the input given on an individual basis. An excellent idea but neither we have the technological capability (massive super computer anticipating needs of stake holders and rewarding them based on their quality of productivity) nor unbiased and efficient government to carry out plans (if theoretically possible to make such plan)
The last century and this may belong to capitalism but once we develop enough technology for efficient implementation socialist or communist economic model may become popular. Optimum production and distribution of wealth, the central idea of these models are ahead of its time and need to wait for technology to catch up with it.
Constitution decides the form of government which in turn decides which economic model is suitable for its stakeholders.
Our country should not be capitalistic because it fosters greed. It fosters inequality. It fosters a worker-class who have nothing because they are not paid their fair share and the upper class who uses the lower class to create its capital. The upper class uses the lower class because they have no feelings of empathy or good will to the very people that struggle so hard in their places of employment. To avoid this injustice of stepping on the poor, all money earned should be paid to the government and distributed fairly. As soon as this is implemented world wide, we will finally have world peace.
So, why the fist, Josak?
The fist will be used against those who are WILLING to work now,
to f o r c e them to
This fist will brings tears to most people's faces. Its called abuse.
Is that what your fist will be used for then...?
F O r C e
this method of world peace?
I don't think this is the vision that John Lennon was singing about in Imagine. He was singing about no borders, no wars, no religion, a brother hood of man. However, utopian schemes like this are never possible.
Self-guided Free Will is annihilated by the
F i S t
G o V e r N m E n T
when it demands the people to work for
PS Your fist is a perfect moniker. perfect. Thanks for the warning.
B A H!
The fist was intended to be a self deprecating joke, it was the classical equality defense fist with a crowbar in it that read "defend equality with a crowbar" just poking fun at myself for being so serious sometimes, unfortunately the image editor cut out most of the image leaving what you see.
Oh yes, this makes it a kinder, gentler fist! Yeah, seeing the word," crowbar " would have been so much better!!! It would have made us all see the peaceful, beautiful world which you want to come into existence, that much better! Why do you show us this? TMI actually. I like it even less, NOW!
So what do you think of MY poster?
It was meant as a joke, I am sorry you don't like it or perhaps understand it. Your poster seems fine, I prefer to keep my face private as I think it helps people be more honest when they converse with me without the preconceptions of my race, appearance etc.
Would you agree with what I was saying? Don't you think higher taxes makes people feel forced to give up their hard earned money and loose all incentive to work at all?
It is not human nature to work work work for SOME ONE else besides one's own family and earn a livelihood for any other cause except for oneself and one's loved ones. Would you agree with this?
Kathryn John would love the fist. John would see it as the symbol of working class solidarity,whenever I see Josaks fist I get a strong feeling of unity,
I think those atheists Left Wingers are all fried in the head any way. Lennon led the charge.
Keep the Constitution!
...and we will be safe from all Utopian-ists.
Forgive them cuz they do not know what the heck they are thinking...
Just don't loose the Constitution!
Or you will be really sorry.
I don't know, it is my opinion that the world is simply not ready for communism maybe one day we will be, it is mathematically a superior system but has serious issues in implementation, perhaps those issues will be solved during the next several decades and it will be a viable system. It relies heavily on the goodness of people and I think many communist thinkers overestimated how charitable and brotherly people are willing to be but perhaps we will change.
NO WE WON' T what makes you think we will change... Human nature is a constant. I am breaking my key board ! STOP ! !!
As I said I am not sure but 10 000 years ago we were living in caves and stealing women from each other to use as concubines, a hundred and some years ago we kept black people as slaves, less than twenty years ago some states did not allow interracial marriage, we are becoming a better, kinder society and that is an ever accelerating process so perhaps one day we will be ready for a system that requires us to love our fellow brother and sister to work. Maybe not.
What do you visualize for America's future?
Pretty much what is happening, slow and democratic transition into a system that moves left bit by bit following in the many successful examples of just that (Australia or Scandinavia for example)
I have no idea how these governments are working... I would imagine they have High taxes! You would like to see that here?
Really? Wouldn't it be better to just do what we can to Keep the taxes low??? it is so simple! Stop all the Government spending programs and let people take care of themselves! That is the way life is!
What you are really doing with this concept in this Forum is inciting the wrath of those who cannot live without Liberty.
You just do not understand that the majority of people in the United States will NEVER go for Socialism. It is like a Bad word. Why do you torture us?
Higher on corporations, lower or similar on average people. They accomplish incredible quality of life accompanied with great economic growth, they are by no means perfect but their systems are better.
In what way is their "incredible" quality of life better? You seem to want equality as well. Do they have that?
They have longer life expectancy, better education, lower crime rates, much lower poverty rates, lower unemployment that sort of thing.
Equality yes in most things, still working on same sex marriage though, very proud that the socialist government of Argentina (my nation of birth) legalized it though.
Why do you not just work on Argentina political things, then? You do not wish to live there? why?
And 2 years ago the socialist experiment in Greece collapsed in a pile of capitalist debt.
The problem with socialism is that it needs capitalism to pay for it.
Everybody pays for and with socialism and that's what is happening in Europe right now.
I must be having a thick moment - that makes no sense.
Cuz you want everybody to pay for everybody ... why is that so wonderful?
Well it's surely better than the poor paying for the rich - no?
You insist this to be true. You can never convince anybody that THIS makes any sense... except to those with very good imaginations.
I agree, the poor paying for the rich doesn't make any sense - it happens none the less, whether I think it makes sense or not.
If you can give me a real, true case, example of this, I would be all eyes.
I cannot bear any more of your usual examples which are generally trite and enjoyable as illusionary fairy tales.
OKAY. We need to keep a check on him... thats what we need to focus on... not changing over to socialism!
I've never seen John say he wants everybody to pay for everybody. How is that even possible? LOL
Of course, I do understand that it's easier for you to argue against a position that you have intentionally characterized to be more extreme and irrational than it actually is.
Maybe you do not understand the precepts of socialism. Europe has what is known as social democracy and is a socialist form of democracy. What we have in our democratic republic is much much different. It should and will remain different.
But it does take the good will, intelligence and robust psyche of each citizen to keep it.
Drink up, guys.
Er, no. It's you who does not understand the precepts of socialism if you think Europe is socialist.
It is a social democracy based on the precepts of socalism.
... Find the Wikipedia definitions yerself, starting with Socialism
Or, do I have to do all the work.)
Kathryn, I would never claim to be an expert on the precepts of socialism but I know enough to understand that neither are you.
Whether what we have will remain different depends upon the will of the people. Mischaracterizing all of Europe as socialist only makes your argument look weak and ill-informed. It's as silly as referring to Obama as a socialist because he wants to preserve a safety net for those who need it.
I must be thick as well ! Socialism in Europe ! Where's the champagne ?
I'd settle for a glass of ale!!
In fact if Europe became socialist I'd probably never drink again
John don't say that. Just think of all that lovely red wine in france,if nationalised they would be giving it away, cheers
Yes, good point Jandee. I'd maybe raise a glass or two of red - red is a colour I'm particularly fond of.
"The people's flag is deepest red,
It shrouded oft our martyred dead,
And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold,
Their hearts' blood dyed its ev'ry fold.
Then raise the scarlet standard high.
Within its shade we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here."
It is not capitalism that is dying and/or near dead, it is communism. Throughout the world, countries such as Russia, China, and Eastern European countries have cast off communism in favor of a more capitalistic economy. Communism did nothing but encouraged mediocrity and all but destroyed individual initiative among the working and lower classes; however, in spite of the communistic government, there were still some members who would be classified as quite wealthy with special privileges. There is more an increase of capitalism than ever. Cuba is one of the holdouts and is still staunchly communistic. Dream on, Josak, if you believe that capitalism is dying, HAH!
I believe I specifically noted socialism and not communism, communism indeed failed, socialism on the other hand has largely replaced capitalism, as I said there is not a single major nation in the world that can truly be called capitalist anymore from all of them a hundred years ago, if you don't think that is dying I don't know what is.
Well i would ask that you demonstrate so with facts, I can't think of a single country in the first world that sixty years ago would not have been called "pinko".
China is known to now be capitalistic. Don't you agree? However, It is almost off topic. What you would really like to see is the US become gradually more socialistic. You should just go back to Argentina. Bye now... I can tell you one thing. After we the people have a taste of what This President is trying to serve us, we are going to throw away the paper plate with all the nasty foodstuffs, as fast as we can.
Back to glorious hard work.
That will be in about 2020. So, don't hold yer breath for YOUR vision to manifest.
EVER... In America,
The Land of The Free.
We'll figure out how to maintain our freedom and Our personal ability to survive Independently. If we ever loose it, we WILL get it back.... The urge for freedom and self sufficiency is very strong in America and
I predict that it ALWAYS will be.
Because there MILLIONS of people like me.
China... not at all, not only do all surveys of Chinese people indicate a strong socialist majority but the Chinese government is a centrally planned economy, the very opposite of laissez faire capitalism.
I am sure all countries felt the same about socialism certainly Argentina did, when I lived there we had a fascist dictatorship that killed anyone who was leftist and I certainly got the same speech many times, "it will never happen here" and then it did, just as it is in the US.
Communism as an elected system has not died. it has not died because it has never been implemented. What we have seen is first stages of Socialism. Please don't be feared that you are about to have this wonderful thing called socialism inflicted on you.it can't be done. You have to work for it . You have to work to get rid of the corrupt and insidious capitalist system that you keep voting for,
@jandee, you're right, communism ain't dead because it has not yet been attained. It is supposed to be attained only after socialism has completely triumphed ... and not before then. But of course, you know that where socialism is so hard to achieve, communism is all the more difficult to achieve because such a society would require a very very high sense of social consciousness, not to mention that one of its first requisites is free energy. Heck, even getting rid of the financial oligarchy that controls the US [which, by the way, is a prerequisite for socialism to even take root in this country] will probably take two centuries, going by the current state of (un)awareness of the people. You see, they equate socialism for lose of freedom, or fascism or welfare statism. However you can't blame them because the failed experiments in 'socialism' in the USSR and Eastern Europe are of recent memory and stare them directly in the face.
Hopefully Socialism will be dead soon.
I am tired of these Leftist brown shirts causing problems.
It will be once we get the brain-dead supporters away from such an evil system.
As long as we have privately owned banks practising fractional reserve banking in a debt-interest based economy, capitalism is not dying. And as long as we fail to regulate said banks, the rich will get richer, the poor poorer and the middle class will fade away.
The federal reserve is the root of our problems. Corruption and greed is the root of our problems. A democratic republic must have boundaries.
The rich must not use the government for their own selfish, power hungry greedy, never enough, blindly ambitious ends. Some of the corporations and the rich took advantage of corrupt individuals in high positons and loopholes to work in their favor. And we must not let rules already in place, such as anti-monopoly laws, be broken. We must (can we?) put into place an auditory/policing agent/system ( or is it us?) to prevent the rich from getting away with murder. That is where the problem is.
Wall street and Washington enabled and encouraged the disastrous behavior of the large investment banks. There are flaws in the banking system. Big banks cause big trouble. Our downward economic spiral has been caused by " bailouts, bonuses and back room deals". (Nomi Prins)
Why punish the people by having to resort to .. choke... socialism?? The people must hold the agencies accountable. We need to pay attention and vote wisely.
According to Nomi Prins, the author of It Takes a Pillage, we can also flood Congress with our opinions to receive equal treatment for People over Banks. The representatives must know that we are watching their actions to determine if we are being taken from. We need to revolutionize regulation. She believes we can stop financial insanity by emailing our representatives, marching in front of their offices, starting petitions, twittering them, flooding their Face book pages.
This assertion goes with the assumption that everything the government does is good, is working and will work in the long-term. It's the same fallacy as saying that socialised healthcare is good because most countries have it - the ad-populum fallacy writ large. It's only been since China has begun to privatise their economy that they have seen such massive growth. Although still centrally planned, it cannot be said that they are more socialised than 50 years ago. And think of Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand, who by comparison are more lassiez-faire, and the most productive countries in the world.
This 'trend' here is nothing more than the inevitable growth of the state. All governments wish they were socialist, preferably a totalitarian state, and will do as much as they can get away with. They tend not to go full communist or fascist anymore since those systems are not sustainable and unpopular (it's why China has become more capitalist). The modern trend is towards a fabian scientific socialism with militarism as a method of achieving globalised government. The method is violence, and is therefore no sign of changing views.
Lassiez-faire libertarianism is the fastest growing political force in the world - those that have realised that statism is unsustainable, and makes us poorer and less free. The only candidate in the last US election that people got behind because of the ideas, and not political convenience, was Ron Paul. Getting 4x more votes than in 2008, this is a real sign of changing times. In the UK, observe the meteoric rise of UKIP (UK Independence Party), the only party willing to address European Union bureaucracy and socialism.
This is not the first time people have claimed that the free market is dead, but it's always there in the background, niggling away, simply because it makes the most sense and people like freedom.
Australia? New Zealand? I live in those places often and you are utterly deluded, they are far further to the left than the US.
In the UK, observe the meteoric rise of UKIP (UK Independence Party), the only party willing to address European Union bureaucracy and socialism.
Hardly meteoric Innersmiff, fringe parties tend to do well in by elections when the electorate feel like giving the govt. of the day a kicking. When poled, I think it may have been 15%, but I might be wrong and can't remember the exact figures, those who had voted for UKIP in Eastleigh stated that they would not vote UKIP at the general election. Some people like their stance on Europe, and want their representation there, but see UKIP as a single issue party; not serious enough to send to the House of Commons. As you know, UKIP haven't a single MP.
UKIP are now Britain's third highest polling party, the most popular party in the European elections, and get most of their new voters from disaffected Labour voters, not Con/Lib voters. And this is has been an upward curve since John Major's government, suggesting a strong ideological change rather than a reactionary one. The reason they have little chance in general elections is due to the first-past-the-post system of voting that puts smaller parties at a severe disadvantage. But all of this is irrelevant since what we are talking about is the spread of ideas, and generally, anti-government sentiment is growing. More so in the US, but there is a strong base here too.
Innersmiff, you can convince yourself of that all you want, but they still haven't got a single MP in Parliament! Is that down to our antiquated system of voting, probably! It doesn't matter whose disaffected voters they have, or have not, they are highly unlikely to secure many seats, if any, in the House of Commons 2015.
Labour and Tory voters are generally dyed in the wool. They'll protest mid term, but not take risks at general elections. That's the way it is, like it or not.
Nigel Farrage doesn't exactly help the cause though. What was found recently in UKIP's propaganda? oh yes, paraphrasing now but:
"Benefit claimants are an underclass of parasitic spongers"
Charming! And good luck to Nigel, who, let's face it, couldn't even organise successful transportation to the poling station on the day of the general election. He's a bit of a joke, to say the least.
I'm sure those comments will go down really well with all the previous Labour voters who've lost their jobs and have to claim benefits! Farrage is an idiot. In Eastleigh they voted for the local representative, not the grinning loon!
You're still under the assumption that the only sign of ideological change comes in the form of politics. I don't care if UKIP doesn't get a single seat anywhere (I'm an anarchist - preferably, no one would be elected to any seat), I am simply pointing out that their massive rise in popularity is a sign, amongst many, that anti-government sentiment is growing. You can bang on that they'll never get a seat all you want, it doesn't refute the point.
Holly How terrible ! He shouldn't be talking about the royal family like that.
How I wish you were right! Unfortunately the people of the US have discovered that they can vote themselves free money anytime they want, and show no inclination to even slow down the growth of government that makes it possible.
More every year; more government, more spending, more people that can't afford to do their part in support of their country. More people demanding more perks and more of that wonderful free money.
It's not going to stop of their own volition, no, so this is why the political route is problematic at best. It won't last forever, however, since there's only so much borrowing for economic follies a country can peform. It is the job of freedom lovers to spread ideas so that, post-collapse, the politicians can't claim that 'we didn't control enough/we trusted capitalism too much'. We can be there, pointing out plainly that when you warp and butcher capitalism to the point where it's not capitalism anymore, of course it is going to be a disaster.
They're higher on the Economic Freedom index than the US.
University is free until people make 40 000 a year or more when a small amount is taken from their wage to pay for it, while studying all students can receive $250 a week plus rent and electricity reduction (does not have to be paid back) healthcare is utterly free for the working class and poor and three quarters subsidized for the wealthy (90 000+) hospital care is completely free for everyone.
Minimum wage is $15.50 soon to be upgraded to $16.50, Australia even has a carbon tax!
You could not be more wrong.
All that may be so but, crucially, it is easier to open a business in Australia than it is in the US, which accounts for the NET economic freedom score being higher. The medical and education systems in the US are subsidised and half-socialised anyway. There is not a great deal of difference there.
Capitalism is dying? Good. It's a starter economy meant to get a nation on its feet, not meant to sustain it for centuries upon centuries.
You know what happens when Capitalism is sustained for that long? Take a look around you. That's what.
Inequality can be contributed a great deal to the inflationary policies of the Fed, that are decidedly un-capitalistic, along with subsidies, bail-outs and corporate regulatory favours from the government. We must first un-do the crimes of government before we start attacking the market.
Pure capitalism was never practiced anywhere on a large scale, except maybe the US or UK in a few decades during the 19th century. Before that, state intervention was the norm via mercantilism and similar policies. And after that, for most of the 20th century, state intervention was higher in the form of labor laws, industrial planning, public health policies, etc.
It doesn't make any sense to say that because a country (such as Sweden, let's say) is not fully capitalist, therefore it is a "socialist" country. Not when there is private property, market-set prices, private competition and so on. You can't have a lower standard for socialism and a higher standard for capitalism. There has to be one metric for assessing both.
The Nordic countries have actually become less socialist and less oriented to state intervention since the 1970s, so they have slightly moved towards the other end of that spectrum. China has certainly drifted towards the laissez-faire end of the spectrum since, say, the 1950s or 60s.
Both pure capitalism and pure socialism have been proven by history to be utter failures, resulting in massive poverty and social instability long term. This is fundamentally why almost all countries, and certainly all large advanced countries, now have mixed economies. They automatically adopted them in the face of the problems wrought by pure capitalism or pure socialism/ communism. (Even if they continue to call themselves "capitalist" or "socialist" in name; China being the major example of this.)
If you think the US is purely capitalist or "laissez-faire" to any meaningful degree, this does not square with the facts.
Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production distribution and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
And that's worse than a few rich men ruling all!
" ...regulated by the community as a w h o l e ."
The word w h o l e is problematic. In isolating the difficulty one must not take away the potential of any citizen's right to be an independent and free agent unto him/herself.
What you do not seem to understand or care about is the right of each individual to maintain his/her own life. If one becomes "poor", that is his problem to solve and usually for those not on some sort of substance, it is a TEMPORARY situation. He has the opportunity in a free society to not only find other work, but elevate himself in the process. He does not have to work for ANY ONE he doesn't want to work for... Like Bill Gates. Gill gates is not standing around with a whip.
But that is exactly what capitalism prevents for the majority.
Socialism doe snot remove the rights of the individual to choose to do anything it simply allows him an equal share of the fruits of his labor.
Name one freedom taken from the individual by socialism.
Thank goodness you didn't ask that question about capitalism! We'd be here all night.
Freedom to either negotiate your own salary OR the price to perform a task you need doing? Negotiate, that is, with the only other person involved rather that a room full of politicians that have no knowledge of you OR the task?
Nope both those freedoms remain unless you are working for the government itself (which is the same under capitalism) additionally you get to vote on those issues rather than just negotiate them.
There is no minimum wage, then? You can set the price you are willing to pay for labor by agreement with the only other person involved - the one doing the labor?
Rewrite that as the freedom to exploit their fellow men.
Taxation is exploitation. Not all wealthy people have exploited others to gain their wealth.
Envy truly is a dangerous thing.
Is an organisation, not a European country.
"Most social Democratic parties are affiliated with the Socialist International." This is from Wikipedia.
Social democratic PARTIES and yes they are usually associated to the socialist international.
No, most social democratic parties are affiliated with Socialist International, not countries.
Some European countries have social democratic MPs. That does not actually make a country social democratic.
O.K. I do have to all the work. oh my head. ( I took a spill while walking my three dogs and I hit my head pretty hard. I have to take it easy... so sitting here quietly at the computer is about all I can do.)
Social Democracy: Taken directly from my computer screen Wikipedia.
A. "A political Ideology that considers itself to be a form of democratic socialism."
B. Advocates the peaceful evolutionary transition of the economy to SOCIALISM (!!!) through progressive social reform of CAPITALISM."
C. "Asserts that the only acceptable form of government is representative democracy under rule of law."
D. "Promotes extending democratic decision making beyond political democracy to include economic democracy to guarantee employees and other economic stake holders sufficient rights of co-determinism."
E. "Advocates universally publicly accessible services such as education, health care, worker's compensation, child care and care for the elderly."
F. " Connected with the trade union and labor movement and supports collective bargaining rights for workers."
So where in all that does it say anything about Europe being even social democratic?
The socialist parties that have arisen in most of the European countries have generally tended toward social democracy which advocates peaceful and evolutionary transition of the economy from capitalism to socialism.
True but it has not occurred fully in any of them yet, most of Europe is composed of mixed systems, Scandinavia has more socialism in the mix while for example the UK (possibly excepting Scotland as I am led to believe they are making some changes) has more capitalism in it's mix.
The bottom line is that this is what you two want for the United states. I know Mr. Holden is not an American citizen and I do not know if Josak is an American citizen... but I definitely am. That my views are 180 degrees apart from both of yours...
Is that a coincidence?
I don't think so.
I want nothing for the USA. I would like them to meddle a little less in our affairs but that is beside the point.
Anyway, what has this got to do with whether Europe is socialist or not? A rather sudden change of direction.
The U.S. must meddle in your country's affairs. The U.S. is a super power and deserves that right. Remember when England meddled in every other nation's affairs?
I am an American citizen. But indeed the rest of the first world is out ahead of the US in terms of political development.
You should go over to the rest of the world. We could care any lesser if you did. They are the ones who sold their souls to extend a stupid socialist ideology.
America's politics is just fine. It is the stupid and vile Left Wing which ruins everything politically in the U.S.
Kathryn, socialists do not recognise national boundaries, whatever you have been led to believe, the ethos underpinning socialism is one fairness, equity and equality, whatever your nationality.
A famous quote from the founder of an ideology from which socialism is derived:
"Workers of the world, throw off your shackles and unite."
That says it all.
Hollie ... do you welcome a One World Government?
I don't welcome any government as you recognise it.
I know, you want what John Lennon wanted , (probably a distant cousin... or a close cousin... are you related to him, John... were you named after him?)
Imagine... its easy if you try...
Not worth a response.
You just stick with your oppressive capitalist government and thank the powers that be that you don't know what freedom is.
forget it ! Your stuff is juvenile and Naff and you have chased me away from this forum.
No governments should remain national (in my opinion) but the people of those nations should embrace each other as brothers and sisters rather than treat each other as enemies, work to see our similarities rather than differences. That is the meaning of internationalism.
Kathryn, we already have one!
Whilst ordinary people argue about left and right, right and wrong, workers and shirkers- the wrong who walk amongst us have already made plans, and successfully deflected us.
Communism may work in Europe the Europeans have a completely different outlook than Americans. Although the systematic dumbing down of our citizens has led to a large portion of them being completely dependent upon our welfare system. I think there are still many who recognize that freedom can only come from throwing off the chains of government and rebelling against the status quo.
Our first infrastructure was created by entrepreneurs and not government and certainly not by an uncaring monarchy, let the Europeans be what they want, if they want misery so be it! We are Americans and those of us old enough still remember what freedom really is!
What if there were no heaven.
And no hell
Living only for today.
No need to kill or die for anything
Everyone living in peace.
The world as one.
No need for hunger
No need for greed
A brotherhood of man
All people sharing the world
It's called Eden. Eve, evil woman that she was, destroyed it years ago.
aw, wilderness, you know it was that irresistible winged snake's fault!
A one World Government will be oppressive. We must keep our individual countries. When the citizens of every country are protected with constitutions like ours, the people will then be given jurisdiction over their governments and their elected representatives...
Only then will there be World Peace.
which of course we all agree on.
(My, I love HubPages and my IMac and the internet and my printer!)
"When the citizens of every country are protected with constitutions like ours, the people will then be given jurisdiction over their governments and their elected representatives..."
What are you smoking, how much is it, and where can I find it?
If I put myself through University (and believe me, I did), study and work hard and manage to put up collateral for a small business loan, even if I owe that money back to the bank, what I build is still mine because, believe me, if you're responsible it doesn't take THAT long to pay off a loan. Now, once I pay off that loan (and believe me, I have), anything I build after that is mine. I built it and paid for it with my labor and my sweat. Anybody who tries to take it away, EVEN if they're with the State, is in for one hell of a surprise.
I don't sympathize with the big fat cat capitalists. However, private ownership and private property is something you can just forget about taking from me. What I have worked for and built is mine. You try to take it, well.....I'll be one of the first ones down in the dungeons of the Ministry of Love, I'm afraid, because I will never let go of my rights of ownership, nor my right to believe in whatever I wish, nor will I ever surrender my right to bear arms. You Leftists will have no choice but to torture me. Should it ever come to that, I know I'll have nothing to lose and nothing to gain, and so you can put me on a death table (cute little device invented by the Maoists), apply red hot irons to my feet, starve me, break my jaw, or do all the other things the Left has done in the U.S.S.R., China, North Korea, the Congo, Albania, Angola, Cuba, and other places. The bottom line is: you'll never convert me. Capitalism may be in need of reform, but socialism is already dead. Communism, its alter ego, has already died. Marxism will never exist. So, I'm afraid the Left will always fail. You folks can believe in Dystopia all you want (there IS no Utopia). It only helps us identify who the potential mass murderers are.
And while I'm picking a fight: Che Guevara was not a folk hero. He was a murderer just like Batista and Castro. Lenin? A murderer. Stalin? A murderer. Mao? Ho? Pol Pot? Enver Hoxha? Jarezelski? Brezhnev? Chou En Lai? Kim Il Sung? Murderers, all of them. Everybody singing the praises of Socialism/Communism/Marxism has already fitted themselves with daydreams of being a dictator or a secret police operative.
Now, for all you folks who are about to call me delusional: Waste your breath all you want. I've said my piece. You sign up with the Left, it means you want to do terrible things. Communists and Socialists are monsters. Their guilt is only a matter of timing: either they've already committed their atrocities, or they've read 1984 and drooled in anticipation of the day they will commit their first crime against humanity.
There I stand, and I will never do otherwise.
You built the building, ran the electrical lines, did the plumbing, educated the workers, fed them, built the entire infrastructure a civilized society needs to function, and invented and administer a judicial system? Wow you are impressive.
I guarantee I've done more than you have. What I have built is mine. You try to take it I make you hurt. It's simple, it's fair. Ready for round two? Because believe me, sweetie pie, your ego will get downsized long before I concede a single point. You and your socialist buddies WILL have to torture me. I'll go along with that, especially since I'm tougher than you.
Lol. You personally attack me instead of addressing the issue I raised. To each their own. In capitalist speak, when someone claims, "I've been successful," most of the time it means they have exploited more people than you have. But without knowing you, I can't say this for sure. Perhaps you are an accomplished author, artist, or scientist. If so, I applaud you.
I also don't believe in torture. It's a degradation of the human condition; it is the quintessential example of the ultimate unequal power relationship, where the torturer is absolutely playing God.
"Exploited" is such a fine word. It brings to mind poorly lit, filthy bedrooms with cameras set around. Or slavery, complete with chains and whips.
Unfortunately what you really mean (based on context) is "helped others buy their home, raise their children and feed them". Would it not be better to use a word with proper meanings rather than one that, while the negative connotations raise emotional levels, have little to do with the actual subject?
It doesn't mean slavery. Slavery is more than exploitation; it is also bondage.
Exploiting the workers need for shelter, food, and clothing is what I mean. Capitalism says: you must submit your individual autonomy to the authority of another because the government has recognized the arrangement of private property is how society will work. If you refuse this fate, and you have no family or friends to live with, you will die of starvation.
The State has stepped, and along with charity, it's much harder to starve to death in the United States than it used to be. There is welfare, charities, and homeless shelters. Clearly, since there are still 50 million Americans in poverty, which is roughly 1/6 of the entire population, even all these measures are not sufficient.
But the capitalist does very little in terms of actual production. Technicians are the ones who design the machines, and manual laborers are the ones who use the machines to produce goods, or mine the raw materials. The CEO isn't doing much at all, except living off the labor of others.
A really good thought experiment is to ask: What are the effects of the CEO and other stop executives of a corporation not showing up for one day of work, compared to if all of the minimum wage workers, and middle level managers decided to strike just for a day? In the former case, there wouldn't be any significant change; but in the later case, the corporation would grind to a screeching halt.
Capitalism says no such thing. It clearly says you have a choice of producing your own needs yourself or, by mutual agreement and cooperation, combine your efforts with another to accomplish the task.
There are 50 million Americans, what? Starving each year? I think not - when we give enough charity to provide such luxuries as cell phones I believe there is enough to eat as well. If anyone in this country starves to death there is some other reason than lack of money or food. Anorexia, maybe.
Start your own small business, and see just how much time you spend in the shop building widgets and how much in the office. You will find that CEO's do far more than you think they do.
Wrong question. What are the effects of one CEO not showing up on a normal day to plan the next year's strategy vs the results of one minimum wage worker not showing up? Which, I might add, happens very frequently. Then consider who will do the work not being done by each - the CEO will do his the next day, someone else will have to fill in for the laborer. We've all done that - split the work amongst those that are there and get it done anyway.
Everyone can't be the boss! It would be contradictory and destroy everything. Capitalism must have a trove of low wage laborers to even function. Everyone cannot be rich. Isn't it interesting mainstream economics claim 4% unemployment is "full employment."
If we give all of our money to charity, our economy would die, because it is based on mass consumption of a variety of goods. As a free marketeer, I'm surprised you are taking this route. If no one buys cell phones, cable, expensive clothes, or anything like that, many of our jobs would disappear. Apple, Microsoft, Cox, Direct TV would all go under. The only industries that would have any jobs at all would be food, construction, medicine (which always will), and clothing. Buying lots of stuff is what stimulates our economy.
But I do agree that we have enough money to feed everyone. That isn't the point I was making. I'm glad you agree to that proposition, because it leads to the more insidious that we don't feed everyone because we simply don't want to. When considering our wealth and productive capacity, there is no other conclusion to draw.
Even if I were to completely grant to you that executives work hard and are essential to our economic system, it doesn't follow they should be paid at the level they are. My thought experiment shows that perfectly.
The executives did not mine the raw materials, build the machines to mine the raw materials, drive the trucks, work the oil rig, build the machines to produce goods, work the machines to produce goods, design the machines, or do any of the day to day necessities of running a business-janitor, cashier, stockers, etc.
It would be similar to me being married and having 5 kids, and my wife and kids doing all the cooking and cleaning, but then I take credit for the cooking and cleaning when anyone comes over.
You may object: but your father provides the supplies and money, which are essential to a clean house and good cooking.
This presupposes money as a valid measure of value; original ownership is also completely glossed over. Claiming providing the "funds" for production entitles you need to the highest compensation, above the people who do the actual work, is similar to saying because you bought medical supplies for your surgery and paid for the doctor's education, that you deserve more credit for your open heart surgery than the doctor.
Lol I'll address whatever I choose. Socialism is wrong. If Comrade Obama can do it, I have twice the right he has to do it. Capitalism is right. The more you dislike that, the more true it will become. My guess is you live at home and haven't held down a job in a very long time if at all, otherwise why else would you be so anxious to redistribute what I have earned with my work? To each their own. No, it goes like this: To me, MINE. Trust me, little one: I don't require or seek your applause your approval or anything else. I work and I produce. You don't like it? Then I know I'm doing the right thing. What I do isn't really your business. It's mine. See, you'd get that if you got Capitalism, wherein you work and no snotty college student gets to say what should be done with the fruits of your labors.
If you believe in socialism you believe in torture. You don't have to like that. It will remain true. socialism/Communism/Marxism/Leninism/Maoism is for monsters. It's simple and true. You're attracted to it because it appeals to your inner monster. You want to have the final say in what happens to the worker. Well, you kind of don't get to have that. All leftist ideology is a degradation of the human condition. This will remain true no matter how smarmy or sarcastic you get.
Didn't your parents ever teach you to share?
Yes, but not with someone who would never share with me.
When someone didn't want to share, the teacher/parent made them.
So we should share because someone demands it of us, wouldn't that be enslaving someone to another's ideology? No freedom if you live under socialism then!
No, one shares because one reaps the benefit of that sharing in the same way that you pay taxes and receive policemen, firemen and military servicemen willing to risk and give their lives for your safety.
So you would have exactly the same amount of freedom in that respect as you have now.
You would "share" pay taxes for the benefit of yourself and society.
This is what we do already and that's not socialism.
Paying for services we need and desire via direct payment or taxes is more about capitalism than it is about socialism.
Socialism is all about bringing everyone down to the same level, so the fireman, police and armed forces personal will all be earning exactly the same as a labourer in a factory. Not really an insentive is it!
Correct that is what we do already, the difference is how the taxes are spent and who owns the major means of production, equal wages have nothing to do with socialism (you are probably thinking of communism) though socialism does propose high minimum wage, the idea behind socialism is profits going directly to the community rather than the owner of the means of production.
There is an awful lot of ignorance about what socialism is.
Mostly because it is against human nature. We have a natural repulsion against it. It sucks.
No, you have a revulsion instilled in you by your capitalist masters.
So because you disagree with it you choose to be ignorant about it? How wise
If it is against human nature how come most of the world lives in socialist or social democratic nations?
P.S. Someone else replied to your thread for people from social democracies, 4 in favor to 0 opposed thus far.
And which country gives the most humanitarian aide and has the most power to assist its allies? (Look at me standing out here for you to shoot me down... aaaah...) it is relevant because we are and have always been a rich nation. Something has gone drastically wrong. Or maybe it is being manipulated to seem that way.
Actually, look now... everything is good... the stocks are up, the unemployment rate is down. Money is being held on to at this point probably and mostly because no one knows the effect of MAMA care. What is wrong with capitalism? It was great in the golden years of this country before Democrat President Carter ruined the land with his democratic implementations. President Reagan and Bush I brought back prosperity until some one thought people who could not afford to buy houses should be able to buy houses.( against all common economic sense.) Who advocated this? Another democrat... Barney Frank.
Wrong! Socialism is about bringing people-even you-to a higher level.
Nah. I was simply giving a rhetorical response to your rhetorical response to Zel.
There is a bigger issue involved here though, one of the courts and our political institutions protecting the "right" of private property.
Aren't we already enslaved to the capitalist ideology?
No freedom if you live under capitalism then.
Motto is I WORKED FOR IT, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, DO THE SAME.............Concur with Dan on that one........
I worked for what I have, too, and still work for it. However, I don't pretend that I didn't have help from people, systems, and infrastructure that were funded by taxpayer money. I'm happy to continue paying for those things that make my life better, and I'm perfectly content that some of the money I earn goes to those who need it more than I do.
You could give it directly according to your own decisions and choices. Who knows where your money ends up.
Exactly, who would know that Prettypanther (or Kathryn L Hill, come to that) needed a leg up?
who will help me, John... it is pretty much impossible for me or any one in my family to get a leg up. so, we get strong and have a blast in the process, and get stronger!
Wow. You are insistent about not responding to my point. It's quite depressing. At least provide an argument against what I claimed, rather than going off in irrelevant tirades. There's also many famous socialists in American history, from Hellen Keller to Albert Einstein, which, if you would like to get into who did more with their life, Einstein dwarfs most PEOPLE IN GENERAL.. So again, your criticism is futile. Any fair minded observer, whether they agree with me or not, can clearly see you are either unable to answer my criticism, or unwilling. I've had discussions with other right-leaning members, and their strategy is not to avoid my points. One in particular always engages. It's not impossible.
Additionally, lumping Moaism, Marxism, Leninism, and Stalinism all together is a gross mischaracterization of the positions, and tells me you have prejudged Socialism without reading any actual socialists. Quite a pity really. Any intro to logic or critical thinking class will soon tell you that if criticism of a view has any punch at all, it has to be an accurate representation of that point of view. Even if you hate socialism with every fiber of your being, read what the authors actually said.
What inventive a would someone have to innovate or create new businesses? Lets face it all businesses run by government ultimately fail.
Yes, just look at Russia, they did absolutely nothing, apart from beat the US to the moon and build great optical equipment and build some great tractors and a lot of other stuff, yeah, you're right, no innovation at all!
Higher wages for those who do provides incentive, many businesses run by governments thrive, Repsol Argentina was recently nationalized and has seen a big increase in profits for example.
Government businesses in the US fail because there is no incentive to make them work, that is a failure of how that system is set up.
Private sector is so much better and more efficient.
Is it really?
Then can you explain to me why when utilities were privatised in the UK prices sky rocketed.
That is the UK. USA is different and does better under privatization. Private sector creates jobs. The public sector does barely anything.
Here is the link: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-th … tor-2012-7
But that's purely about profits!
Surely government run businesses are run on behalf of the people and therefore success should not be measured in profit but in customer satisfaction.
"Surely government run businesses are run on behalf of the people and therefore success should not be measured in profit but in customer satisfaction."
Surely you are joking? That statement requires honest and caring people in government, and those are few and far between. Instead government business are run for the benefit of govt. officials, their friends and their jobs.
And success will always be measured in customer satisfaction, reflected in rising demand, prices and profits. At least in capitalism; socialistic business success is measured, apparently, in providing minimum survival necessities for every citizen. A socialistic business would seemingly be successful if it managed to support one "employee" whether it produced anything or not. A perfect definition of the welfare department in the US although it actually supports many thousands of employees rather than just one.
Correct; socialism has no customers, just owners, (the community) and even the term "employee" needs quotes as it is not truly accurate.
Now we are getting somewhere, unless you actually believe that government owned businesses are socialism!
No, they most certainly are not; my post clearly says they exist primarily to profit govt. elite and their friends. Not the people OR products they supply (if any - most do nothing of value)
OK, good, we're singing from the same something or other
Maybe - I was actually commenting on capitalistic govt. business, not socialistic ones.
But can you address the lack of incentive in socialism? To me that is the single greatest fault; an inevitable gradual slide back to third world status as no one will put out extra effort without extra reward.
The rewards could include doing more meaningful and thus more satisfying work, it could also include the massive amount of free time and who's to say that other incentives might not be given, a better car or a better home.
Money isn't the only incentive and if you strip away the need for money you free people up to develop in other ways.
PS. Einstein was a socialist, he didn't sit around all day doing northing.
More time off work, better car, bigger home - all things concerned with money. Let's leave in money as a medium of exchange for discussion purposes if nothing else.
But you're back to unequal pay for people - something I thought was a no-no. In addition, you are creating a fantasy society where every need and want is met with minimal work or effort and that's something that does not exist. To top it all off, you're introducing capitalism into the socialistic society as soon as hours worked, tons produced, etc. is no longer equal in value.
The way I see it being done is simply reasonable quotas, you meet your quota to get your wage, you go significantly over the quota by working very hard or being very skillful then you receive more pay, there is nothing anti socialist or capitalist about incentive pay.
Additionally one gets the added incentive of receiving a better wage (because the managerial and owner class does not leech most of it) and working for the good of the community rather than just for the good of the guy who owns where you work.
As soon as there is incentive pay the concept of "from each according to their ability" is out the window. And as soon as that incentive pay is received the concept of "to each according to their needs" has also flown away.
Incentive pay, any form of increased pay on an individual basis, runs contrary to the very concept of socialism I'm seeing in these forums. It is straight capitalism - do more, do better, do smarter and get more for it regardless of any need - and should be recognized for that.
Truthfully, it sounds very much like you love the results of capitalism, just don't like the idea that someone has to manage a business effectively and can't stand the idea that hard work can accumulate wealth that can then be put to work building a business instead of digging ditches.
No, not at all, there is no contradiction in incentives and "from each according to ability" and neither is there any contradiction between need and " to each according to need"
No, I can't see that, you'll have to explain to me why "any form of increased pay on an individual basis, runs contrary to the very concept of socialism" It doesn't in my book.
The problem is that in capitalism many peoples hard work can accumulate wealth for one person, leaving the rest with little or nothing.
It may well be that you have a fantastic manager but one who can't even turn on a centre lathe and a centre lathe operator who can't manage for toffee. Why is the good manager worth so much more than the good centre lathe operator (we are talking highly skilled lathe operators here, the type that have done an apprenticeship, not semi skilled robots).
The first thing you have to do - before reading any further - is to tell me how you make your post with sections of mine to reply to.
Done that? OK then:
"from each according to ability" - everyone works at 90% or their capability (or whatever, just the same whatever the number is) and is paid the same for that work. " to each according to need" - everyone has their needs met - anything left is split equally. Equally, not more given to some merely because their ability is higher.
Good manager: The manager of a widget factory employees 10 machinists. each capable of producing (on a good day) 10 widgets. By using excellent managerial skills, he doubles the efficiency of the factory and produces an extra 100 widgets per day. The excellent machinist, on the other hand, doubles his efficiency and produces an extra 10 widgets per day. Manager - 100 extra, machinist - 10 extra. Which accomplished more for the community? Keep in mind here that neither is operating in a vacuum; while the manager has 10 machinists helping him, the machinist has the manager coordinating raw materials orders, a janitor cleaning up, a secretary devoting part of her time to him and 2 salesmen selling his product. Both have others contributing to their success.
While I personally find management to often be overpaid (particularly those on the top end), they are generally of more value than either ditch diggers or even skilled tradesmen and should be paid accordingly. Something, apparently, that socialism won't do.
The issue of course is what is "managerial skill" if it's advertising absolutely, if it's motivating people there are much better and cheaper ways to do that than hiring a manager and that has been proved by worker owned plants and factories.
There is an excellent Argentine film about the factory takeovers called "La Toma" it has been translated and is "The Take" in English about factory workers running their own businesses. I recommend it as the point is very much addressed, suffice to say they did much better without supervisors.
I think it time to clarify the old "from each . . ." thingy,
The way that I understand it, it isn't an absolute and has nothing to do with working at 90% or 75% or 110% of capacity, rather that no man shall be forced into a job outside his capabilities - no graduates having to dig ditches because there is no other work for them or no ditch diggers being forced into factory work because there are no ditches to be dug.
"To each . . ." States that no man shall be paid less than he needs to survive, it doesn't say that all men must be paid the same and it doesn't say that hard work can't be rewarded, just that no man will be paid less than he needs to live.
That's my take on it anyway, perhaps not as poetic as the original but hopefully not as confusing either, and of course not everybody will agree with it.
What - a college grad is incapable of digging ditches to support himself? Or a ditch digger can't sweep factory floors? You've really created a fantasy utopia if you think there will be a job "suitable" for every single person at all times.
And there's that "force" thing again - and again with no force being applied.
So now we're paying and earning according to ability, not needs. We're taking according to what we're paid not ability. We're not equal any more, and after minimum needs are met the world is again capitalistic.
John, it appears that what you really want is capitalism with the top earners (CEO's and upper management) scraped off the top, with all decisions put to a majority vote. You want to pay by ability, you want the possibility of collecting wealth, you want all the good things of capitalism (while claiming it's socialism) with a pie in the sky idea of how it would work in practice.
No, not incapable, just not forced to take ditch digging as the only available option. If he really wants to dig ditches then let him.
I don't understand! Where is the force? Surely that's in making a graduate flip burgers because there is no other employment for him?
How come? Everybody's ability's and needs are different.
Of course not everybody is equal, but everybody has equal opportunity.
No the world does not revert to capitalism if a doctor has a higher reward than a burger flipper.
Sigh! I thought we were actually getting somewhere.
Oh but we are getting somewhere!
We've gone from a ton of manure = a ton of gold to products having actual value. Presumably set by a vote of the people wanting it.
We've gone from an hours work = a set pay for everyone to an hours work is valued differently for everyone. Presumably set by a community vote of each job, location and circumstances.
We've gone from no accumulation of wealth possible to wealth is fine, presumably as long as it is never "excessive" in your opinion.
We've gone from never having more than your needs to earning more by dint of your work, presumably as long as no one gets more than you think they should.
So far this is capitalism in a nutshell, at least until the "presumably" sections are added in. You believe that people will be honest rather than self serving in their assessments and votes as well as believing that you know what every job and product is actually worth - I believe neither.
That just leaves the idea that no management is needed, that workers will work together to perform that task with no ability or training to do so. That business ownership is forbidden and evil, and that the community will do what is right and provide business with necessary capital instead of putting it into their own pocket. Experience shows that none of these fine ideals is workable, so the result is that socialistic countries (what little actual socialism is there in practice) put capitalism into the equation, with supervision, entrepreneurship and all the rest is added in.
Producing the expected result; neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism is workable in real life. Both need elements of the other and neither provides the best results in all areas. You will continue to promote the idea that the greatest good for the greatest number comes from socialism, I will continue to agree that that is true in the short term while noting that it also stifles incentive and in the long run capitalism will do far more for the most citizenry. Capitalism, restrained appropriately, will always produce a standard of living that the best of socialism, appropriately set free, can never match.
No, the whole basis of capitalism is that a few accumulate capital at the expense of the many.
Socialism abolishes capital.
Socialism certainly does NOT abolish capital. Land and buildings must be found, whether already owned by govt. or not is immaterial. Machinery purchased, whether from taxes or private funds is immaterial. Raw materials must be purchased; same thing. Ditto for starting payroll.
All capital needs, whether from tax receipts or private stash. Or "profits" from other govt. owned businesses.
I might add as well that the theory behind a corporation is that thousands of people all "own" it, distributing profits according to ownership.
Starting with the last first. It is true that corporations are often owned by thousands of people, all taking a cut. The problem is that these people rarely have any connection with the business beyond taking a share of the profit earned by the workers. As you say, profits are shared according to ownership, not to input.
Please leave the government out of this. Their only responsibility is to uphold the law, not to own land or property, all of which is owned by the people, just like America was in the days of the founding fathers. You went out into the wilderness, built your homestead, cleared the land and hey presto, you were home. No title deeds no mortgages, no nothing.
And why does machinery have to be purchased with capital? That is a capitalist concept.
Even if I accept your point that socialism doesn't abolish capital, it abolishes capitalism. Nobody could sit at home and just live off their capital, nobody could increase their capital by "investing" in businesses. Banks would not be able to sit down all day gambling with other peoples money.
Input. As in input of the capital necessary to start the business. I understand you don't like people with an extra $100 in their pocket to invest in someone, you don't like the idea of receiving a return on that money and you don't like the idea of using money as a commodity to be used for anything but personal purchases.
I disagree. If I buy a U-Haul truck with my money and rent it to homeowners wishing to move but that don't want to buy their own truck I expect a return on my investment; I'll rent it to them but won't loan it free of charge. I don't even see a problem by using more money (of part of the return) to pay a driver if that homeowner doesn't want to drive it themselves.
Good - we have removed community ownership of business from the socialism equation as well. Private ownership of the business is then required - capitalism is again in the forefront.
I don't think you will buy much machinery with Twinkies. That leaves capital (money) even if you don't like the use of the correct term.
Back to the U-Haul; give me enough capital and I'll have a fleet of trucks to rent out, and need do nothing but sit home and do paperwork. Exactly as it should be; the commodity I have has value and can produce a return. I provide something the homeowner wants and fully deserve a return for the rental of my truck. We've already decided I can own things beyond my immediate needs and I choose a truck that others will find valuable. Or will socialism decree that I can own nothing of value? I can own it but anyone that wants it can come get it? How does that work in your version of socialism?
You might have removed community ownership from the equation. I certainly haven't!
(Excuse my brevity tonight, tiring day!)
But...government is community. Whether massive central govt. or smaller city/neighborhood community. Unless you mean owned by the workers there, whereupon each one will have to buy in to have a job and the business has to buy back ownership when someone quits work. Otherwise you have the capitalistic corporation.
Or does the central govt. capitalize it, fund it and turn it over to the workers and then keep subsidizing it from general tax income when they run it into the ground?
But you are still thinking in capitalist terms! Why does anybody have to buy in to get a job? Why does a business have to buy back anything when somebody quits?
And why should the workers run anything into the ground? They don't as a general rule under capitalism and they'd have much more reason not to even try under socialism.
I'm trying like mad to write a simple explanation but however I typed in the appropriate quotes and brackets it refused to let me post.
We used to have a system in this country called Job and Finish, I don't know if that translates so brief explanation. A gang of men would turn up for work in the morning with a set task to complete, but no time on it. If they worked hard they could finish their days work by late morning. If they slacked or were plagued with breakdowns etc they might not finish till five or six. Same pay early finish or late.
You could always tell when guys were on Job and Finish, they would run rather than walk, carry two instead of one.
They all got the same pay though and were quite happy with it..
I've worked a few jobs like that. It works well, with both management and employee happy. At least until govt. pokes it's lovely hand into the equation, with such things as minimum wage. overtime pay, etc. At that point it falls apart as costs to the company go up.
You are correct in the sense that in a socialist system a business that can support one person is a victory even if it does not make profit (so long as it breaks even) under a capitalist system if a person creates a business and it just constantly breaks even with no prospect of improving then there is no reason to keep it open because there is no profit, on the other hand in a socialist system a business that breaks even while gainfully employing even just one person is a victory partly because that person now has money to spend to stimulate the retail sector mostly because that is one person who does not need to be taken care of with welfare.
The quick result is no unemployment.
Partially correct, but only partially.
Under capitalistic systems a person can own a business with one employee - themselves - that does it all. That business can be successful and continue indefinitely with no other profit. Just as it does in socialism, it supports one person and is successful.
Both have no profits - even the capitalistic one has all "profit" going to pay the owner their living wage just as the socialistic one does even if the word used is different.
And both (capitalistic and socialistic) removes one more from the welfare roles. The capitalistic can always be done, but doesn't the socialistic one need to be funded by the community and then overseen by the community to make sure the earnings aren't more than anyone else and that there are no profits quietly being spent on luxuries beyond their needs?
Oh my, we have a live one. He's tougher, smarter, more productive, and takes full credit for all of it while writing articles about narcissism in teenagers. Oh, the irony.
That's right. I am tougher than you, smarter than you, more productive than you and I WILL take full credit for all my accomplishments, whereas you will take none. The real irony is you, who have accomplished not one tenth of what I've done in my life, thinking your little finger-wag is going to put me in my place. Run along, socialist filth. What I have worked for is mine. Try to take it and you'll lose a hand.
LOL, DB. Smart people don't have to trumpet their intelligence. Strong people don't posture. Productive people get it done and move on.
Funny, and you know nothing at all about her...
Actually what you accomplish you do thanks to the same system of taking you are so violently criticizing, are you not protected by the army and police, were you not educated by the public system, do you not expect firemen to put out your house if it catches fire?
which he pays for...which he agrees to pay for. ..through taxes. And he can afford to pay the taxes because he has a job.
- what is your point?
You want him to pay for more than that. You want him to pay for everyone else's everything.
That will increase his taxes. That will give him less of the money he earned and give him
Less Control Over His Life.
How can you not comprehend this very simple argument?
Kathryn, have you noticed that this is the same song and dance about the "evils" of capitalism and the "benefits" of socialism. There are those among us who want equal income distribution. They want everyone to earn the same and that there should be no wealthy people and that wealthy people are evil and exploitative capitalists who oppress the poor.
What some of these posters fail to realize that many poor people, especially in America, are thus because they have a mindset which they learnt from their great grandparents which was successfully inculcated into succedent generations. Many poor people in America are of the school that the world owes them something. Many such children have the opportunity to better themselves through education; however, they listen to their parents, relatives, and other peers who inundate them with the premise that education is for nerds and that success is out of their reach. Their credo is fast money and the street mentality or whatever mentality of poverty they receive.
Conversely, those who are successful are thus because they have that particular mindset. They want something out of life beyond just mere survival. They believe in taking every foreseeable opportunity there is to succeed and make their mark in society and in the world. They believe in NO EXCUSES and in PROACTION. Capitalism is a marvelous system, it rewards those who are enterprising and work smart. Many people are afraid of those two concepts, Kathryn, so they become passive and envious of those who are more successful instead of assessing their lives and making something worthwhile of it.
Yes, gmwilliams. It is funny, but my son's '97 Acura got stolen. He decided to go ahead and buy a '13 Acura. He took it upon himself to go the extra mile by realizing that it would help him in his business. Later, his car was located untouched... He gave it to his father, (who was still driving an old '64 bug around. His work truck is a '79 chevy and a gas hog. ) My son could have sat around in a depressed funk, but he didn't. He couldv'e sold his returned car for $1500, but he didn't. He was happy to be able to give it to his father.
Just think if he had the burden of paying for everyone else with high taxes. Luckily our taxes at this point are relatively low. We have to keep it this way!
He was complaining about taxation right there.
I don't anyone to pay more taxes at all, this is just part of the continuous ignorance around socialism in the US, socialism (as a complete economic policy) reduces taxes.
Oh for goodness sake... what are you smoking and how much is it? I don't want any... however. Have you taken a stroll through France or England or Canada?
Places in transition, not yet socialist.
Under a socialist system the means of production are publicly owned which means that the community receives the profits directly meaning there is no need for taxation at all.
You should really try reading some books on the matter so you understand the basics.
Where is this being utilized... where the taxes are low, as you say. Where the means of production is "publicly" owned... this is usually not even possible. Which books do you recommend?
The means of production being publicly owned is part of the final stages of socialism, several countries (Argentina, Venezuela, Vietnam etc) have partial public ownership of the means of production but there is no country which as yet has total means of production ownership.
A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
As a starting point I recommend "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" as it is emblematic of the roots of socialism and it's ties to workers rights.
O.K. thanks for the info. Is Argentina doing better now?
what about the size of our country? We have an extended republic. Do you see the sates maintaining borders?
What would the point of having them? Why not just get rid of Mexican and Canadian borders too. Use all one currency for the whole continent? This is what is being planned, you know. Your dream will not manifest in America.
Why would you want it to?? We like capitalism. Why did China adopt it?
Because there are significant cultural and social differences between he United States and say mexico which make it necessary for them to have separate governments.
I absolutely guarantee it will occur here, as it already slowly is.
China abandoned a regressive form of Maoism not socialism.
None of those tasks are complex to a point where a private company could not perform them.
No. I wasn't claiming that. The individual in question acted as though their "success" was entirely the result of their own actions.
But what does that prove? Presumably, all of the individuals involved in those tasks took payment in a voluntary contract. If they wanted some of the literal produce that resulted from it, they would have stipulated it in their contract. However, they are getting the produce in form of payment, because the business necessarily needs to produce in order to pay them!
If it is to deteriorate into socialism it is the fault of both labor and entrepenerial. The fault lies with labor because it did not watch their government being taken over by the greed of big business buying influence within the government. The greed of the entreneur to subvert fair trade and put a congressmen in their or their organizations pocket is paramount to the decay of the system. Unfortunately as the society earns less and less and the rich gain from their bad fortune the newly created poor will need to find some relief from the government by protecting what they have and how they are to survive. It is very sad but a blunder of our own uninterested in government selves. The Fox now owns the hen house.
The Executive branch has bypassed Congress again and again, through precedent after precedent established by Supreme Court rulings in favor of more and more power to the executive in charge at the time,
(starting with Lincoln) They were implemented by establishing governmental regulatory agencies enforcing rules and laws that our own representatives have never been able to discuss, argue, or reject. It has been a direction against true federalism (shared power) in Washington DC.
So, the overwhelming power in Washington is in the Executive Branch rendering the other branches with very little power.
The jurisdiction which the constitution originally gave the people has become greatly diminished. So, our own Representatives have very little power. We need to fix this unbalance of power.
Now, We the People have even more work to do.
But, when there are so many lazy ones demanding that taxes pay for everything, it can feel pretty hopeless to those of us who want to keep and manage most of our own money and our own lives.
When the majority of the People care about personal independence, we can turn it around.
Or is it too late?
We can't even stop the best light bulb in the world from becoming illegal.
(But, we should fight the light bulb ban
- winning a large skirmish like this one will give us the confidence to fight the more gigantic ones.)
By the best lighbulb in the world to you mean tungsten filament bulbs that rely entirely on a metal expected to be used up within 30 years? and which use about 3 times more energy? Oh it is definitely an excellent idea to stick to those
P.S. We also have to buy all that tungsten from overseas almost entirely from China.
You really think this all adds up to a good idea?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Increasing executive power is a problem every American should ponder. It's not a liberal or conservative thing to me. If a president claims he/she has the power to assassinate people based on a secret kill list that only him and a few select higher ups see, how is it different than a monarchy?
A president may not have the power to decree anything he/she desires as law, but holding the power of assassination legally in your hands is a recipe for disaster.
I include the executive branch as a major hinderance to real government taking place. I always wonder why some people (not pointing at you Katheryn) seem to think that the president can fix anything or has enough autonomy to do so if he wanted. If the system we now employ is so corrupt and manned by so many slimebags in charge what would make anybody think the president is immune to these forces as well? You have many presidents pardoning, harboring and protecting corrupt heads of state through out history and the same goes for campaign contributors and lobbyists. The problem exists with us thinking that if we vote this one guy or representative in we can make a difference is preposterous and glares in the face of logic. Look at the people on this forum who are so convinced that if we vote one group into congress over another that the slimebags will change a thing. The system is broken and the people lack the will or concern to change it.
Term limits, publicly financed campaigns and lobby reform is our only hope. Take the money out of the influence buying and you may get a government that leads and not takes.
The mercury filled bulbs are bad for the eyes, brain and lungs of our children they should not be in children's rooms. They should not be in our landfills. it is beyond comprehension using the curly mercury filled bulbs. We should refuse to buy them. The LEDs are horrible for the eyes and atmosphere of our homes. The only good bulbs are the incandescent ones that are about to be made illegal ! and there is no good reason for them to be illegal. In fact, Arizona and Nevada are not making them illegal.
You cannot possibly be serious, incandescent bulbs require Tungsten there are between 25 and 30 years of tungsten left (and it has far more important applications than light bulbs), pretty much all of our tungsten has to be bought from China (our main economic competitor) and they use drastically more power.
LED's are not bad for your eyes and florescent are absolutely fine for 95% of the population, several countries have instituted such bans with no problem and no increase in eye problems. Not to mention the decrease in power costs.
That is yet another inevitable change (soon we will be out of tungsten anyway). I would have thought you would be against giving China more money.
I will have to verify what you are saying about the precious tungsten. It is probably a lie. it is very hard to believe... who says they only have 20 to 30 years supply???
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/ … ould-care/
http://theobjectathand.wordpress.com/20 … -of-light/
http://www.polytechforum.com/metalworki … 39130-.htm
You should probably get a clue on what you are talking about before declaring it "is probably a lie".
However, the article states that Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway are investing in 80 million in tungsten mining in South Korea which has been one of the world's largest tungsten producer. The filaments used in incandescent bulbs account for 3 percent of the use of tungsten. Thanks to Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway, there might be plenty, unless they mean to use it for their own stuff and don't plan to sell it.
I wonder if we could recycle the tungsten from the bulbs...(some comments I read were suggesting that.) But it is such a tiny little filament!
You know, (well you don't,) it is an economic issue! Perhaps having to do with China 'capitalizing' on the "shortage". That was another comment I read.
(who knows! I just do not want to believe it, because I prefer those bulbs!
Honestly? I think you are trying to incite the youth and trying to get them to think in terms of socialism, when it the last thing this country should resort to! and I wish you would stop it!)
I also read, " The Us has quite a bit of Tungsten, Canada too, in the Yukon..."
Of course environmental issues are preventing access to it.
My take is that capitalism is not dying, but is in a process of revealing itself to the world as something which has to be killed. And that is the key, to end capitalism the people must violently overthrow it. The Bourgeoisie and their governments will not just allow capitalism to die, they fight to maintain its survival: they buy out banks, they cut social spending and increase corporate benefits. They are fighting a class war to maintain this entangled contradictory system. We can only win by launching ruthless war back upon them. This is the only way capitalism will die.
On the global balance of power things are shifting towards the anti-imperialist countries for the first time since the Soviet counter-revolution from above destroyed the proletarian base. Latin American is engulfed in a pink tide, Cuba remains an icon, The DPRK brushes off the problems of transition, China remains, Russia is only clinging on to capitalism by Putin rigging the process to keep the Communists out of power, poll after poll shows the people of eastern Europe wish to return to Communist Party rule,. Belarus holds strong as Europe's beacon of socialism, Workers in Spain and Greece have partially awoken from their slumber - although some are duped by the false prophets of the likes of Syriza.
However, countries like Britain & Germany lurch further to the right, both economically & socially. US imperialism carries on regardless violently forcing their ways on the people of the developing world. So the major powers who have historically been hoped to rise as bases of revolution are just not going to. From my estimation there are two likely ways that may see the international arena sharply turn in our favour and against capitalism is a) Putin loses his illegitimate grip on power, thus we will have the CPRF at the helm. B) The Chinese Party advance to socialist production and acts as a revolutionary base. We need a major productive power like a Russia or China to protect people's revolutions from imperialism, or they tend to be strangled.
Whatever happens there is a long way to go, and the people should not rest on their laurels.
Group think is the temptation.
Let each person take care of himself. Then we need less government and individuals have more freedom. Revolutionize regulation and all will be fine. No need to f R e A k the F o U T!!!!
(Get a Grip C. J.)
It is so darn simple that it escapes people with hot red heads.
"Group think" is the only reason we no longer make children work in factories, it is the reason you are not forced to work 80 hour weeks, it is the reason you as a women are no longer considered property, that slavery was abolished. It is the organised working class, trade unions and social movements continually fighting for rights and progress around the globe that have won every significant freedom you have. If you want to see how laissez faire capitalism works look at how people lived in Victorian Britain. That is what you have with "less government and individuals have more freedom". Anyone who wants this yet is not a member of the bourgeoisie is simply a turkey voting for Christmas.
Your claims bear no relation to reality, only primitive indoctrination. You do not need to have a hot head, just be willing to use your head.
But how do we do that when corporations have a stranglehold on government?
Mostly greed, but also because we allow it.
But the biggest lobby, spreading the most money and buying the most politicians is the farm lobby - even though a few are corporate they aren't in the category you intend.
We allow it! Try changing things and then realise how little power we actually have.
And yes I was including the farming lobby in with that lot, it is mostly corporate anyway.
Yes, we most definitely not only allow it but encourage it. As a nation and people, not necessarily individuals.
The corporation donates $100,000 to the politician who buys airtime to tell "his" people how great he is, how great the corporation is and how much they need help. As the politician "brings home the bacon", buying junk for "his" people from govt. coffers and at no cost to the locals, he is a great man, believed and voted back in. Or at least voted back in whether believed or not; a nice new museum or much needed sewer plant at no cost to the users goes a long ways.
Let the population remove their head from the sand, actually listen and question what the "great man" says and he won't be in office past the next election. We allow it.
No, your corporate masters allow you to think it. That is not the same thing at all.
allow allow allow.... that word makes no sense, whatsoever... writing fairy tales again?
Yes it makes perfect sense. You don't really think you have a say in government when even your president doesn't.
Have you never wondered why Obama hasn't done half the things he promised to? You don't think that maybe it is because the real government of the US wouldn't allow him to do them?
Maybe because he lied to garner votes? After all, it only took minutes to declare (first election) that we would have to elect him again to see some of his "promises" come true.
Or maybe he got into office, became privy to more information that he ever had, and discovered something couldn't be done or would be extremely foolish (simply walk away from Iraq or Afghanistan, for instance).
And, of course, he wasn't elected King. Just president, with congress and the supreme court as controls over his foolishness. Not that they've done much controlling...
Cuz, the executive branch has assumed so much power with all sorts of precedents being set in the favor of more and more power throughout the years. This needs to researched and understood. Congress has literally LOST power, thanks to Supreme Court decisions in favor of Executive power. That is why it is crucial to get an appropriately qualified candidate into the white house next time around.
But what if he did none of those things?
Just got himself elected and then discovered that the president had few powers over the real government?
So, who is the real government of the US? The New World Order already????
If John Holden knows much, why does he not just come out and tell us what is up? and stop beating endlessly around the bush. Do we get to keep our economic freedom or not? Is he saying we are doomed?
to W H A T ??????
I think perhaps he means that government is being manipulated by wealthy individuals and corporations. Which of course is one of the big problems with capitalism, it inevitably concentrates wealth and that inevitably leads to those with concentrated wealth corrupting public servants and politicians.
I've told you countless times who I think the real government of the western world is (not just the US) it's corporations.
The United States based corporations are bad for the whole world? ??? ?? So, John, there is really no way to get them together and tell them we don't like what they are doing and they just should follow the laws please. And if they say ... "No." We bring in some police officers and arrest them on the spot.
NO? I like writing fairy tales too, as you can see.
Actually, I have been noticing a book being displayed over at Whole Foods called Conscious Capitalism. I've been meaning to pick that book up.
They do negatively affect the whole world and they would simply say yes then corrupt the people who enforce the laws (as they already have done) it really is a tragedy.
I don't remember saying that only US based corporations were bad for the whole world, there are some none US based corporations that aren't so hot.
If we were to tell them we didn't like what they were doing they would laugh at us and as for setting their police force on them . . .
Right John. He is just a tool ! As Thatcher was a Tool ! Put there by the Bosses..
the bosses of the corporations. got it. We can get to the bottom of all this without resorting to a social democracy which will cut down on the individual liberty we are VERY MUCH USED TO BY NOW at this point in time!
Social democracy does not cut down on liberty, indeed there are social democratic states with more liberties than the US.
Capitalism has no effective method for dealing with corporate power this has been proven over and over again in recent decades.
Name a freedom you would lose under social democracy.
Then social democracy allows the freedom to negotiate prices (including labor) between the only two individuals involved?
Our current system requires us to let the "social" part (government) decide how to spend much of our income - social democracy gives us back some of that freedom? Or do taxes go up (maybe for Obamacare)?
Yes to the first one.
Taxes do sometimes go up under social democratic systems but equally several social democratic nations (like say Iceland) have lower taxes than us so it is variable. However paying taxes to paying maybe slightly more taxes and maybe less is not a freedom. (A system that allowed you to not pay taxes at all would be giving you a freedom but that has it's own problems.)
And there I've always considered such things a minimum wage (inability to negotiate your own wage) and price controls to be a social democracy thing. It certainly doesn't come from capitalism, after all!
While there are undoubtedly social nations paying less taxes, don't they all either have fewer necessities (big army, maybe) or other sources of income that could be distributed to individuals to spend as they wish (oil fields maybe, as in the state of Alaska)? Bottom line always seems to be that govt. will provide for individuals, meaning they need money, meaning taxes.
Which is actually a lot more than the present capitalist system allows.
Take it or leave it isn't a negotiation!
The Freedom to pay for the stuff I need because I won't make enough. You say that taxes will not be high and that we will have freedom, but where is this being done? Most social democracies have less economic freedom!
I just heard that Sprint is under a congressional mandate for donating phones and minutes to the needy which will UP MY BILL !!! I will quit Sprint when I see my higher bill. Of, course pretty panther and jandee think I should be HAPPY to help out the needy. Yeah, in my own way in my own time and my own choice.
Actually many many social democratic nations are higher on the economic freedom list than the US according to the conservative Fraser Institute.
Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Chile, Finland, Denmark. Even Canada though I am not sure if that is technically social democratic.
And as mentioned above social democratic states can have lower or fewer taxes, Iceland has lower taxes and Australia for example has no inheritance tax.
So no you are incorrect try again.
Common sense wins over wishful thinking and BLIND HOPE ...which we have had enough of in this nation already.
Better luck next time, Josak.
Warning: Exercise in Creative Writing:
Once upon a time there was a corporation. It offered many jobs and became wealthier and wealthier. Wonderful products were produced contributing to very high qualities of life for literally millions of people. People were smiling and happy.
Then they got a little caught up with their immense power and they became overly ambitious and ended up playing the politics game. They forgot about the smiling people who had benefited from their products and who used to look forward to pensions and good working conditions.
But, then one day the people decided to try to figure out how to get the greedy corporation to remember its humble beginnings... They reminded it that if everybody looses everything, nobody will have anything to pay for its products! Of course, the owners asked, "What do you mean by that... ?" And the leaders of the people said, "Well, the country that enabled you to build your fortune, will L O O S E the very system that promoted your economic freedoms in the first place. Is that what you want? Really?..."
And thinking it through, the corporation owners declared, "Well, we don't care... we have so much power at this point...How could we give THAT up?"
And the grass root leaders of the people tweeted each other and their followers to fly to Washington to march in front of the White House.
Then, they began twittering and face booking their representatives and they formed a huge virtual mass of demanding, passionate people. "We want a revolution in regulation! We will not stand for anything LESS..."
How this story will end is the question.
We the People might... just might...
NEED THE HELP OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH!
I will have nothing to do with this Forum any further. I have said enough and will not continue to throw pearls to the pink.
Unable to figure out a freedom that would be lost huh?
All economic freedoms whether you will allow the truth or not. I am done with a LIAR.
Oh and one last thing.... STOP LYING! We know the truth.
Link does not work properly for me.
However people leaving the US is not a problem for us as every first world nation has more progressive taxation than us, there is nowhere to go where things will be better tax wise.
Additionally monetary departure taxes are a solution to that problem should it arise (and I repeat it is not a problem the US will face in the foreseeable future).
Norway hiked it's taxes and everyone predicted similar problems, instead it become the wealthiest per capita major nation in the world.
It is factually not a serious issue.
How long since Gordon Brown was PM of the UK?
"... In another hundred years laissez faire capitalism will be gone forever."
I agree. And it will probably be replaced by a money-less society as proposed by Jacque Fresco and the like, who envision a resource-based world economy.
"...global implementation of an economic super structure.
predicated on his views of social cooperation, technological automation and scientific methodology, which he refered to as a 'resource based economy'."
He was Born in 1916.
He wrote of "sustainable cities, energy efficiency, natural resource management, cybernated (computer generated virtual reality) technology, advanced automation (meaning less work for humans), and the role of science." (Everything in quotes from wikipedia.)
But what about the human spirit? Will so much technology set us too free?
- or bind us to the tyranny of the outer world... turning us away from the inner world of our own true spirits? We must stay in touch with our own power, strength, and freedom of action. I would rather live naturally in a log cabin with true purpose, rather than the steel grey of modern architecture housing virtual realities, and robots taking away any reason to exist.
My understanding of the resource-based economy is that the robots will supplant menial labor, those routine, mind-numbing work that prevent the mind from attaining its full potential. Those robots are not supposed to replace the creative human spirit. You will be freed from routine and drudgery and will make it possible for you to focus, for example, on improving your painting if that's what you believe you are good in, without fear of hunger. Those with aptitude in other spheres of human activities can do the same without being prevented by economic consideration. The consequences of such a society, if it ever becomes reality is staggering. Highly creative persons will probably become a dime a dozen. The human spirit will soar. And you can stay in your log cabin and still be productive doing what matters to you most.
Maybe, maybe not. There is certainly no guarantee of what you are saying. The reason I question is this: We have so much in the way of technology now. We practically live on the astral plane. Who appreciates it? Who is thankful for it? Who is happier for it?
And instead, Who is getting addicted to it? Who is made arrogant by it. Who
misuses it for deviated and selfish reasons. Without morals we are loosing our Democratic Republic. Without souls we will fall asleep despite all the "advancements."
On the other hand, of course, modern advancements have contributed to our abilities to be healthier, live longer, network, learn, become talented writers, mathematicians, space explorers where it all started I suppose ...or in defense, and the list is endless. etc.
It is a matter of rising to the occasion. We all know there is a price to pay for advancements, and we are not going backwards.
or are we...? time will tell on all of this! Thank you for contributing here, Flood Gates.
Capitalism like rock and roll will never die ! Or should I say it wil be the last to die , after all ....does anybody want to buy my job , its the best and last one in the world !
+ a multillion percent. Long live capitalism.
It's pretty much dead already. Name one legitimately laisez faire capitalist place on earth.
The only reason it is still alive is because it is still alive. it is still alive. it will stay alive. Long live Conscious Capitalism. We can learn from our mistakes and make it work.
As I said name one place it is still in form, you can't, not so long ago one would be able to point to the whole world, that is not only dying but dying fast.
Are you happy the new pope is from Argentina?
I felt a moment of nationalist pride then remembered I am not a big fan of the Catholic church
Here I was thinking you were a big fan of atheism. After all, Socialists, MOST of them do not adhere to Christianity.
Most people with an IQ over 85 don't adhere to Christianity. Atheism is the unfortunate side-effect of intelligence.
I don't know if it's correlative to IQ or intelligence but certainly it is to education.
I know college professors who are Protestant. I guess they don't have IQs over 85. I know Deans who believe in God. I guess they don't have IQs exceeding 85 either.
Science is not everything.
And being the smartest man in the world will not get you into the kingdom of God. The dumbest person who believes in God and is humble will get in FIRST.
We already know that. Most members of the Left actually think that human-made governments can take the place of the creator. They kindly dismiss people who believe in the Lord as myths and fables.
The creator will outsmart all of the idiot Socialist atheists.
We are for the Individual in this country. We are for the individual to make his/her way, to choose his/her life. It is not about security and ease of life. It is about a great life; a dynamic life. A life of doing it "my way," using my talents and contributing to a percolating free economy. It works every time it's tried and it is based on the natural resourcefulness of the human spirit. That is why we come into existence. Not to be in a group. To be one wonderful person who has power and creativity and love and can build a life as he/she sees fit, while at the same time assisting others. It is glorious thing, Freedom. Capitalism is the result of a free economy. There is nothing wrong with it when certain guidelines are followed.
- and I think I just channeled that from Abigail Adams.
I am so correct ! I just knew you were a he!!
I truely believe the only reason so many people bash our country is because we are not only a great success , but that they envy our freedoms Theres alot of that here in these threads ! Are you so jealous of America that you have to bash its success!?!
If having $17 trillion in debt is success, I sure as hell don't want to see what failure looks like.
Thank Obama for swelling the debt. Socialists love people on Big Government pay rolls.
Obama didn't "swell" the debt; it was $12 trillion before he showed up, and now it's $17 trillion. Also considering the fact that we were in a surplus under Clinton, that means it was Bush Jr. who racked up that $12 trillion debt, plus whatever we had in surplus.
Obama has generated 41.6% of the debt Bush Jr. did. Still not good, but if you're gonna blame someone, you'd better look at the guy who caused 58.4% of the debt.
He swelled it and please learn how to do math.
The myth that Clinton had a surplus is just that. It is a damn myth. Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).
The National Debt increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency. I wish you ignorant Lefties would understand that.
The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.
In truth I wonder , so many nations never return loans from America , that I don't actually care if we do pay off our national dept to China , As far as the trade deficit goes , And China having a poor record of participating in trade deficit negotiations : as far as I am concerned , we're even ! They steal from our exceptional research and developement on all fronts , they hack our national defence computors , our government secrets ! Hell with them !
OP. In my understanding of true capitalism , it breeds itself into more and then even more ......! More consumerism , mfg. , profiteering , R+D., Jobs, jobs , jobs,, ! Growth ! right ?, So how exactly is the most vibrant econmic system in the world "almost dead "...? Socialism , communism , and whatever else, has pretty much proven themselves unsustainable . The simple fact that the U.S. economy is approx. 30 % of the worlds economic make-up tells me that perhaps ,you know not of what you speak !
Every known organism on earth is limited in growth. Why is capitalism so different? There are a finite number of people with a finite amount of money.
Capitalism introduces little that is new any more and relies on "new sleeve, same old song" to try to get people to spend money that is becoming in shorter supply by the day.
The only thing limited in growth is Socialism.
The only limitation to capitalism will be population control.
The Left is really big on population control.
I have read some of the quotes from the far Left environmentalists. They REALLY do hate human beings. Greenpeace and the Sierra Club were created by two of the biggest Left-leaning environmental nut cases.
Capitolism is dead? You mean Communism is dead. They ran out of money.
As to capitalism dieing , it will die when the tumor of taxation from fanancial success at its roots finally gives up and leaves America , Oh yea ...thats already going on ! I'll tell you this ,capitalism will be the last to go down ! The others have been dead awhile !
...as long as we maintain our Democratic Republic.
We must fight the push toward socialism... which Obama, the media, and others here keep advocating --> (as though they are being paid by the NWO folks to do so, otherwise why would they bother???? I mean really?)
People who work hard will not let the ones who do not get away with it. Socialism as well as Communism is on the way out.
We all know that Socialism is for the lazy.
Thanks a lot to Obama for puffiness the debt. Socialists Feel Affection for People on Big Government pay rolls
No, capitalism is for the lazy, especially the unwilling lazy, after all capitalism pays people not to work. Something that socialism would never do.
Oh no no no no. John, why are you presenting totally platitudinous arguments. Come on, now really, John, Capitalism is not for the lazy. Lazy people do not profit under capitalism. Either one works and is rewarded or no does not work and is not rewarded. People who choose not to work under capitalism, unless they have affluent parents and/or a sufficient monetary inheritance, do scrimp by and have to do the best they can.
Socialism, on the hand, kills socioeconomic incentive. In socialist countries, everyone is taken care of whether they work or not. At least in capitalism, one must prove his/her socioeconomic prowess so to speak. There are greater socioeconomic rewards in capitalism then there is in any other socioeconomic system such as socialism and communism. Your socioeconomic theories are so fantastical to say the very least!
Yes lazy people do profit under capitalism, capitalism is the only system where you can not work without being disabled or elderly and still get paid, you reward laziness because you fail to provide employment. It's simple fact.
The socialist creed: He who does not work neither shall he eat.
The capitalist creed: We pay people for not working then blame socialism.
Very true, in fact capitalists like to blame socialism for every aspect of capitalism that doesn't work.
Josak, jandee and John Holden are nothing more than trolls.
Of course lazy people don't profit under capitalism, but people profit from the laziness of others.
Whereas socialism says that if you don't work you don't eat.
In socialist countries (real ones that is) everybody is not taken care of whether they work or not and in no way does socialism kill incentive, why should it?
BTW, wasn't it you who drew attention to the fact that Einstein was a socialist?
OK, sorry for implying that you had a glimmer of common sense
I REFUSE to go there with you this morning John. Capitalism is far more beneficial and growth enchancing socioeconomically than socialism. Capitalism will never die and it will continuously evolve and transform itself to suit the current socioeconomic times and climate.
I am going to make it easy for you John. Capitalism is analogous to the traditional grading system of A-F in schools. Students who apply tthemselves academically, oftentimes are commensurated with As and other high achieving accolades. They often belong to honor societies. Those who do not apply themselves as hard and/or as smart, receive Bs, Cs, and so on. Those who do not apply themselves at all receive Ds and Fs and are regulated to the bottom of their classes. There is a strict correlation between academic application and the grades received.
Socialism is analogous to the pass-fail system in schools. There is no intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. You pass whether you make a mediocre or an exerted effort. There is no coherent grading system. So the student who studies hard, passes and so does the student who exerts as little effort as possible. Get it now John. Socialism sucks and no one in their logically thinking mind who advocate such a futile socioeconomic system. I AM TOTALLY DONE WITH YOU!
Quite the opposite, it is mathematically untrue that effort has a greater correlation to success in capitalist societies than in socialist ones, that is why the US has such low economic mobility, people in the US born poor stay poor much more than in socialist and social democratic nations, and stay rich much more too, because capitalism rewards how lucky you are (mainly in your birth) where as socialism rewards hard work.
Everything you say is verifiably untrue, feel free to compare economic mobility across nations.
Here WE go again. Many poor people in the United States remain poor because of generations of a particular mindset. They are inculcated to believe that they are powerless and are not in charge of their lives. They are further indoctrinated to believe that education is not for them and is a waste of time. Their parents do not teach their children the importance of delayed gratification, everything is for the now.
Many poor people are not taught the importance of owning their lifes and destinies. They are inculcated to have a slave mentality regarding circumstances. They refuse to be proactive and accept responsibility for their lives. They would rather be rescued and blame the outer socieity than to assess and improve their particular situation.
There are poor people in this country who become wealthy e.g. Dr. Ben Carson, Oprah Winfrey, Dr. Wayne W. Dyer, Mark Wahlberg, my parents, and countless others. It is because they refuse to succumb to the premise that because they were born poor, they were destined to remain poor. What utter BS to say the least. If one wants to improve one's life, he/she must get off and use his/her a$$ets constructively.
Exactly, the traditional grading system rewards the academically gifted and punishes the practically gifted. Not only that, it favours those from an academic and middle class background against those who come from a background that might not be that way inclined and where as well as lacking in encouragement, facilities are lacking as well.
Yup! Capitalism is analogous to the traditional, and unfair grading system.
Do I hate your grading system? Yes, your grading system is unfair and labelled me as thick,or stupid, I may be stupid on occasion, but not thick.
Yes, I said it, I didn't learn courage at school, and I'm not thick either.
John, totally apologize for uncalled for and snarky remark. Very unprofessional of me.
really, if yer gonna have a kid yer gonna be the one teaching it skills for survival and abilities to enjoy...as in YOU the parent!
often times, the parents totally DROP THE BALL!
Did it occur to you that if you are not academically gifted, that your abilities lie more to the practical side, that a trade school might be a better fit? One where grades reflect the subject studied - practical ones - and that you can excel in?
Or do you demand that everyone be able to excel academically?
What trade school?
We had grammar schools for the middles class intelligentsia and secondary schools for the rest, the problem was that the secondary schools still only taught academic subjects apart from the one workshop session per week.
Actually, a couple of years after I left school I "got" it.
Secondary as in 8-12 grades, something prior to college?
True in the US as well - while there is generally a few practical classes, the majority are academic. That's OK, too. The purpose of the lower grades is a well round academic education, not a skill set. Basic reading, writing and arithmetic, with a smattering of other things thrown in as general education, examples of what a student might enjoy, etc.
Trade schools, teaching skilled labor come after that, just as academic universities teaching more in depth knowledge and thinking do.
Just how many Socialist Countries have you lived in ?
The Soviet Union wasn't easy on the lazy which is why the capitalists started lies about it.........
So there must be another lot that you haven't told us about ?
I don't think there is really a "...push towards socialism" Obama bailing out private banks and corporations is not a push towards socialism. It is more like a normal course in the practice of crony capitalism. Socialist countries, if there are any more left that's pure, will probably bail out ailing public corporations but not private ones. There's the big difference.
Additionally, the group that controls the central banks and the Federal Reserve in the case of the US is called the financial oligarchy. This oligarchy represents the apex of capitalism. This elite group controls not only corporations but more importantly nations/governments. And the US is not exempt from its control. US history is replete with stories of struggle by Republicans and Democrats alike against this oligarchy, even prior to independence. See for instance http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/mcfadden.html. The Fed is above the US government's power to control. Sen. Barry Goldwater said “...the accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited..." and that it “operates outside of Congress and… manipulates the credit of the United States.”
Presidents were even allegedly assassinated resulting from such struggles.
The only president who successfully fought the Fed, albeit temporarily, was Andrew Jackson. And his term was the only point in time when the federal government was able to pay off its entire national debt. It was said that an assassination attempt against Jackson failed.
To make a long story short, the starting point towards recovery for the US would rest on its position/action for or against the Fed.
I wonder if you have made the connection with the person who was said to have attempted the assassination and with a member of a famous British family ?
I think the guy was named Lawrence and was supposedly acquitted due to mental incapacity and had done the job alone. But there was another version of the story. There's a claim Lawrence was bragging that he was sent to do the job by some powerful European benefactors and that he was assured of protection if he got caught. If this version is correct, the mental incapacity angle is the best defense for his acquittal.
However, there's a lot of cloak-and-dagger in history, and one version or another has at least an element of truth in it. It's hard to ascertain which version tells the more truth. The onus is left to the reader/researcher to dig deeper for the truth. For example, Jackson made a lot of enemies during his two terms. One of those enemies are the very powerful money lenders of his time. His other enemies are not as powerful but they can also be suspected of having the motivation to do him in. Up to this day, there could be vested interests vigilantly guarding the truth from coming out. So, who masterminded the dastardly act? Your theory is as good as mine.
As long as there is an iota of Communism about, it shall never be over. Death to evil atheistic Communism.
The rich got greedy and got in bed with the politicians and the NWO folks. Its not our fault. We need to put a stop to it. Let them know we won't stand for it.
Let them Know we Give a darn!
*We are onto them.
*It will be stopped.
*We will figure out how.
*We will not tolerate any more abuse of the people.
*We will recognize the abuse and do something about it.
*We will somehow, if we care.
- we could call it the "We Will" Band of People or
(just an idea.)
by Mahaveer Sanglikar3 years ago
One of my friends on forums thinks that Capitalism is dying, almost dead. But what about Communism? Isn't Communism already dead?I would like to clear that I am neither a Capitalist, nor a Communist and even not a...
by Audrevea6 years ago
Genuine question & one I haven't had time to read up on to find out. Sounds good in theory - why did it fail? Could it ever work?
by mrnasir4 years ago
Choose a name,you think is a better system and tell at least one reason of choosing.
by Sophia Angelique6 years ago
sm.Socialism are services provided by the state, e.g. medicare, social security, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, etc. Socialism can also include things like subsidized transport, subsidized electricity,...
by Charles James5 years ago
As some fellow hubbers will know, I am involved in writing hubs for a Socialism 101 series.There are a few issues raised by the conservatives where I do not fully understand what they are saying. Before I address these...
by James Smith3 years ago
Hans-Hermann Hoppe in A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism essentially argues that there are in fact only 2 possible economic ideologies: Socialism and Capitalism, and variations of. You either believe there should be...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.