Recently there have been some long-tailed debates held in the comments section of certain Hubs. Particularly in the Hubs written by James Watkins and John Holden.
I was wondering if it would be possible to have a reasonable debate here. Not that I'm hopeful but it's worth a try:
Socialists hold that Capitalism has grave economic and moral flaws and advocate a revolutionary socio-economic reform to remedy those flaws. Economic flaws include; vast unjust inequalities in wealth, income, opportunity and power, moral flaws include excessive individualism, competition and materialism and the exploitation of ordinary working people.
That is where I am coming from. I am convinced that the next step in the evolution of human society will require a shift from the competitive system of capitalism to a more co-operative society.
Anybody care to disagree?
Disagree 100%. Number 1: There is no limit on wealth. 2: There is no Moral obligation to anyone but oneself. How is it for Liberals and Socialist to claim "morality" when I make myself wealthy, yet, they have no "morals" when taking what is not there's or, did not earn? How is that "moral"? Liberals and Socialist like to use words like "Compeditive", yet, the very nature of Socialism defeats this?....Why should I work harder, do more or push myself to be better when I already know I'm going to get part of what's in the "pot" for doing nothing.....?
You're idea and argument, if it was so "great", why are all forms of this idology failing every where in the world? What amaze's me is how far will people go to be lazy.....Jugding by some of the comments....Pleanty.....WELFARE is a Socilist idea....Tell me, How's that working out? In fact, when a person is on WELFARE and wants to get out there to work, better themselves, what's WELFARE do? They kick those people off....That's MORAL? That's SICK.....One may say; "Well, if they can work, they don't need WELFARE"....In a perfect world, that's correct but, here, in the real world, someone on WELFARE getting say, $1000.00 a month (OF MY MONEY), should be given a short term opportunity to work for one year given time to build up their skills and bank account then treated like a dead beat Dad,,,,They pay back....That will teach responsibility and get those people back on the tax roles....SOCIALISM needs more TAXES to work, where Capitalism creates TAX PAYERS.....
But they aren't. Take the UK, quietly in the background there is a socialist economy worth £33 billion and growing whilst the rest of the economy shrinks.
Of course it isn't called "socialism" we're getting wise to the way the right twists everything, but it is all based on the foundation of socialism and that is worker ownership of the means of production.
Socialist ideas haven't failed anywhere in the world with the fall of the soviet union the right celebrated and sanctioned the end of socialism but that assessment was premature,and socialist ideology is not only alive but thriving around the world more than ever. what failed in reality was the dictatorship of the proletariat,and communism.
I still assert that the Soviet Union was neither socialist nor communist.
Yeah...OK....And I assert the money found under my pillow last night because I lost a tooth, was left there by some little guy with wings, too...., Honest!
Right, and neither is china but I believe that balance is the key to everything in the universe and the socialist principles of social justice combined with the engine of capitalism is what is proving to be the most successful way for countries to advance both socially and economically, I would present my country of origin Uruguay in south america as a perfect example of this.
John have you been to the Soviet Union? Re.70s ! Have you been in a house where the people lived rent free ? Where electricity was free, where gas central heating was piped through every house,where the people picked up their bread from the bakery free and much much more! My name for this was Socialism but if you were thinking it wasn't yet Communism I would agree
I would agree,jandee
Same thing exactly happening in Argentina cooperatives where everyone is paid an equal share of the total produced by the factory/farm are currently the most succesfull bussiness models around whats more their profits have risen by up to 300 or 400 percent more because they no longer have to pay for the leeches that are supervisors CEO's and board members.
Cuba is right next to us, Cuba has allways been much poorer than us and may allways be as it is smaller and lacks the mineral resource and population strength yet in this tiny island nation with a fraction of our anual gdp Cuba has a higher life expectancy and a lower infant mortality rate as well as free education for everyone all the way through school and Uni.
just briefly in closing, adressed to an above commenter who touched on this: welfare payments, let me start off by saying I despise the welfare cheat and leech just as much as you do if not more, I believe it is everyones moral duty to work and thus help everyone around him BUT considering our economic climate in the US without welfare and with current unemployment imagine the world we would live in, tens of thousands starving to death, children hungry and unable to learn, millions selling everything they own to keep themselves off the street, many of them failing to do so, soup kitchens without nearly eneough to feed everyone and streets populated by endless waifs begging for food or a job no matter how poorly paid, this has happened before, I am sure John will tell you better than I how dark times were for the poor of Britain during the industrial revolution before welfare, Welfare is a socialist idea, and as a socialist I am damn proud of it.
Who's "They".....? OK, so - According to you...There is one "economy" in the UK that's BAD (Capital markets, no doubt) and a "Secret" economy that lurks in the background - Thriving no less, and that's socialism but its not called that....
Yes, yes, I see now....Well we have the same thing here too....Its called the MAFIA....Ever notice their "thriving" economy is never in the red? I think this is something the left knows about - Its call thugocracy.....
Nice try tho!...Let me know when you have some facts and not some "secret" story....
Boy oh boy, touched a nerve there didn't I!
It isn't a secret economy at all, accounts are published. And I've posted a link already on this thread which you might have seen had you not been so busy being outraged at the idea that something other than capitalism works,and works well.
Economic flaws include; vast unjust inequalities in wealth, income, opportunity and power,
Inequalities of wealth and income aren't a problem unless those inequalities are achieved and/or maintained through fraud, coercion, or violence.
Inequalities of opportunity are a problem in any society that wants to be a meritocracy.
There will always be inequalities of power no matter what political/economic system you have. Even in a socialist utopia like the UFP of the Star Trek universe, Captian Picard has more power than Will Riker, who has more power than Ensign Ro. The problems occur when those power inequalities have nothing to do with merit, and are not tempered by reciprocal responsibilities and the rule of law.
moral flaws include excessive individualism, competition and materialism and the exploitation of ordinary working people.
I dunno if excessive individualism could be called a moral flaw. Excessive competition? I'd like it if there were more competition in our society. It's really really hard for a startup to compete with an established corp when the established corps get subsidized and have such influence on the lawmaking/regulatory process.
Excessive materialism is a problem, but not merely for moral reasons. If we had unlimited resources, and unlimited capacity for waste removal, there'd be no problem with excessive materialism. But we have limited resources, and limited space in which to put the trash. Someday, we're going to run out of both, unless we can figure out how to live sustainably.
Exploitation of working people is a problem, because exploitation assumes fraud or coercion.
Full-on socialism also has its economic and moral flaws, including excessive taxation without commensurate benefit, and suppression of individualism.
But there's a happy balance to be achieved. Norway (currently the most prosperous nation in the world, according to the Legatum prosperity index) seems to have achieved it.
The trick seems to be to find that point where there's a social safety net that's robust enough that you can try to create a new business, and know that even if it fails, your kids won't go hungry, but still let there be a good reward if you succeed.
How many great ideas get no farther than the planning stage because the risk of not being able to feed and educate one's kids if it fails is deemed too great? And how many kids go hungry and don't get to go to college because a business failed in a more capitalist society?
But how many great ideas never got past the drawing board in the old USSR because, hey, what's the point? Even if I succeed, all of the profits will be taken by the state, my kids will still go to bed hungry, and they still won't get to go to a decent school. Pass the vodka, will you, Sergei?
Have a look at my hub Socialism 101 and by all means write articles I will be happy to link to.
Thank you Charles: I have been a follower of yours for some time.
I have written a number of articles such as "Why I am a Socialist" and "The Thatcher years" etc. It's just that I'm interested in a discussion here rather than spoil the Hubs.
All of this depends on what you mean by "capitalism" and "socialism." The wild west capitalism that is practiced in China today is quite different from the state-dominated capitalism of Japan or Germany, for instance.
The fact is that history has shown that all these "isms" are useful only in a purely academic, philosophical context. In reality, we need both the state and the market to deliver prosperity to people.
Unless one is going to advocate for or against specific things (such as private property, prices set by the market, or taxation and redistribution), the discussion is just academic or rhetorical with no substantive relevance to the real world.
Socialism can't work
Mises proved this 80 years ago: socialist economies are incapable of creating price structures and thus are incapable of allocating resources; also there is no incentive to do the work that no one wants to do.
Give it up.
Hm, socialism can't work, the great Mises says so.
It a good job that nearly 13 million people in the UK have either never heard of him or give his silly idea the finger.
Cooperatives are socialist in all but name being owned by the workers and users.
With a turn over of £33 billion a year and outstanding growth whilst the rest of the British economy is shrinking, well,it's obvious that they should have listened to Mises!
So you think "33 Billion" is a lot? Can't even buy a Hockey team with that....You don't get MORE when you DIVIDE there Saul Alinsky...Math doesn't work...Try painting
UK isn't pure socialist. Deal with it.
OH, and... isn't like, all of Europe bankrupt?
Well no most of Europe is fine the only country genuinely close to bankrupcy is Greece which is bankrupt because the new governemnt discovered the national debt was six times what the last governemnt admitted and the per capita gdp was half of what the last party reported... Other countries in trouble are Ireland (preety much ok) and Portugal which is preety much fine I should mention though that with the exeption of Greece none of them have the debt per capita that the US does :p
Let's see, the issue hit Ireland, Greece, Portugal, and will likely spread to Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, the UK, and Germany is risking its citizens' livelihood by bailing them out.
I read that a major part of Greece's problems are due to billions in unpaid taxes. Apparently, they feel they owe the gvt nothing, so let the world eat cake.
I got mines, now screw you. THAT is the problem.
The entire globe is infected with it.
Well, except for the people of Iceland, who said: YOU ate the cake....YOU clean up the mess!
Such common sense, unbridled from the emotionalism of greed.
Greece's GDP (government included): (e)312B
Greece's Government Spending: (e)114B
Greece's Non-Government GDP: (e)~200B
Greece's Yearly Deficit: (e)24B (10% of non-government GDP)
Greece's Debt: (e)330B (about 15 years of 2011 deficit rates)
In order to repay their debt, they would have to spend absolutely nothing (gut 50% of their GDP) and then tax EVERYONE'S INCOME for 100% for a year and a half.
... so, no. It's not because of unpaid taxes. It's from (e)300 billion government expenditures.
The only people "getting theirs" and then "screwing others" seems to be the government who can't seem to say "no" to their people.
All that and you still reckon capitalism is wonderful!
I would caution against calling Greece an example of capitalism in action
But Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, UK and Germany!
France's government spends more than 50% of the country's GDP.
Belgium's government spends more than 66% of its GDP.
Italy's government spends about 50% of the GDP.
Spain's government spends about 60% of the GDP.
The UK's government spends about 30% of the GDP.
Not capitalist, but much more so than the others! (That's like, 0.7 out of 6)
Germany's government blows about 40% of the GDP.
... wikipedia for the win.
It's going to be hilarious to see all the other countries begging the UK and Germany for bailouts over the next decade.
US government spending as a % of GDP 38.9.
So what does that prove?
Evan just please explain to me on what planet you live that you seem to believe that the percentage of its gdp that a country spends determines whether it is capitalist or not.
1.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
That is socialism read it and love it or hate it but stop getting it wrong.
Oh he can't help it.
I'm still chuckling at his suggestion that my idea of socialism (workers owning the means of production) is really capitalism!
As far as Evan is concerned everything that has ever worked is capitalist and everything that has ever failed is socialist, that is the defintion he has
Are you joking?
Socialism is when government owns the means of production.
Fascism is when the government tells you what you can do with your property.
Capitalism is when private entities own the means of production
Thus, if Gov.Spending is higher, the country is more socialist.
And this "socialism is when the workers own the company' nonsense has got to go: that's just "owning stock".
"But if other people own the company, then it is no longer socialism" I understand that: but if YOU OWN the company, then you CAN SELL your ownership of the company.
See how that works? Ownership?
Yeah!!! Because countless largely-socialist nations are going bankrupt, I think that Capitalism is great.
You are EXACTLY right!!!
Well done Evan, you missed the point entirely.
No I think you're redefining socialism randomly in your arguments.
Socialism is when the state controls the means of production.
You're using socialism to mean "co-ops and communes", which are not macroeconomic in nature.
in fact, voluntary co-ops and communes are capitalist because the individuals freely choose to do what they want and are all working together to benefit their compa... er... commune/co-op.
No Evan, socialism is not where the state controls the means of production.
Socialism is where the workers control the means of production.
How on earth do you maintain that co-ops are capitalist? There is no big boss, no corporation calling the shots, and as for freely working together and choosing to do what they want, do you think that applies in capitalist businesses?
Your definition of Socialism is known as "public stock", and fits entirely into a capitalist economy.
My definition of socialism is entirely a separate entity from capitalism. It's also the situation we're discussing: The governments Europe spending up to 66% of their citizens' wealth, and then going bankrupt.
So, no. I'm using the correct definition for the situation.
So you are saying that successful socialism is capitalism!
There is no public stock in socialism, it's all owned by the workers or participants.
Your definition of socialism -- that people willingly decide to start up a business together -- is capitalism.
In fact, it happens very frequently in capitalist markets around the world.
I don't know if you've ever heard about this, but there's this thing called "the stock market", where people trade ownership of companies. The people say "I own 1/100th of this company, and have a 1% vote on major decisions such as 'who shall be the chief executive officer'"
In fact, there's a big (not-really) problem with this because many crappy internet start-ups paid their workers with stock..... ... and now some of those companies are going public and are worth billions. Obviously, those people are still entitled to their money and voting privileges, but the companies are hamstrung.
Oh rubbish Evan, a group of people might decide to set up a business together is not my definition of socialism. How they do it is though.
They might decide to go down the capitalist route and sell shares in the company on the stock market or they may decide to sell shares to the people actually involved in the business.
"How they do it is though."
So... we agree? "***Setting up a business freely with other people**** where they all have ownership of the company" is socialist (by your definition)?
Well, capitalism is "freely being able to open up a business"
your definition of socialism is the same thing as capitalism.
"Let's twist again like we did last summer, let's twist again like we did before"
Evan capitalism maybe being free to open a business, but as soon as you sell shares on the open market it is no longer your business, it is the shareholders business. And let's hope the shareholders like you, if not,you'll be out on your ear.
My definition of socialism is not the same as capitalism no matter how you try to twist it.
So, what you're saying is... socialism is capitalism, but only if the workers refuse to / are prohibited from selling their claim to property...
"Socialism is when the workers are prohibited from doing with their property as they wish"?
Yeah, so Socialism is tyrannical/limited capitalism. We agree.
Would you say that Norway is a Socialist society? They seem to be doing pretty well....
Evan: all your posts sound the same: Do you just cut and paste the same to every discussion? LOL
I love it when you give him an example of socialism working and he immediately says "that's capitalism"
If a worker OWNS part of the company, then they can SELL part of the company.
This is how the stock market works.
This is capitalism.
Tell me exactly where my flaw is:
If the workers own the company, they all can't own 100%. Thus they own a portion of it. If one truly owns something, they can sell it. Thus, the workers can sell their claim to ownership of the company. Thus, it's really just a stock market. Thus your claim of socialism is actually capitalism.
Exactly where am I making the mistake in logic.
Point it out to succinctly, and I'll agree with you.
If a company is on the stock market, anybody can buy shares in it, they don't have to work in the company, they don't even have to live in the same country. They have ultimate say over the future of the company and those who work in it.
In a cooperative, everybody who works for the company owns a share of that company, cease to work there and you have to give up your share. Nobody can own a larger share than another so nobody can take control of the company.
Your mistake is to think that anything involving money is capitalism.
Read your own posts, they're all very similar.
You're all just saying the same things with different words.
I keep it simple.
Free enterprise and capitalism are not the same thing. It's a mistake to contrast socialism with capitalism. Contrast it instead with free enterprise.
Socialism does not work. Capitalism as currently practiced, with big breaks for big businesses, also does not work, and is very similar to socialism.
Free enterprise works. I think, IantoPF, that this is what you are looking for.
Yes Aya! I did miss this post. In fact I've gone through the whole thread again.
Free enterprise has always, to me anyway, been just a more acceptable way of saying Capitalism. A kind of sanitized word that really means the same thing. I'm really not aware of any substantive difference between the two. What difference do you see?
Capitalism is the accumulation of capital in few hands or under a single management. (Marx)
Free enterprise means the right to trade freely with others.
Free enterprise does not necessarily have to result in large amounts of capital under a single central control. It can instead involve independent farmers, shop keepers and small professionals each plying their trade.
Free enterprise is about the rights of all people to engage in commerce being the same. Nobody has special rights.
Now the term capitalism isn't a legal term. It's just about how things happen to be arranged. It's about the monetary structure of businesses. So you can have capitalism in either a socialist or a free trade model. A modern factory usually involves capitalism, in the sense that the workers do not own the means of production, whether under socialism or under what purports to be free trade. Under socialism, it is the state that owns things or some variation thereof. Under supposed free trade, it's a corporation. But in both cases, it's collective ownership and collective control.
As it happens, giving limited liability to corporations violates the basic tenets of free enterprise: that no group collectively can have greater rights than the individual members of that group. Limited liability is a violation of the rights of innocent third parties not part of the corporation. It is also something that leads inexorably to the accumulation of capital under collective control. The only arrangement under which workers can individually own the means of production is free enterprise.
If you are interested in these ideas, check out my novel The Few Who Count, available free on Kindle.
Pure socialism doesn't work. The Soviet Union found that out. Pure Capitaism doesn't work, look at this country during the industrial evelution - child labor, pollution, wage discrimination, sweat shops, etc. A combination of capitalism/free enterprise and socialism equals a good balance.
The soviet union was anything but socialist being pure state capitalism.
The Soviet Union was top/down socialism. Bottom /up socialism is the only true form.
So all soviet industry was owned by the workers then! They did a pretty crummy job of paying themselves then.
Amazing....So you think they had a "Choice"? Keep Electing guys like Obama, Pelosi and Reid.....They'll bring the Socialism to you....In fact, they have
Here we go blaming Obama and the current administration when socialism existed in this country since President Washington ordered the frirst US Census in 1790. Some people cry foul about the idea of socialism in this country while at the same time they're collecting social security and medicare, use the public library and postal service and send their kids to a public school.
Exactly, they had no choice which is a very right wing model, not socialism.
There's only one non-socialist in the mix.
Mitt "I like ObamaCare, but just act like I hate it" Romney,
Newt "Dude, let's live on the moon for no reason" Gingrich
Rick "Keep bombing them brownies!" Santorum
Barack "Let's outsource our torture" Obama.
Stalinism is not the same as socialism!
Stalinism is definately not socialism. The USSR started out with groundwork outlined with Karl Marx's theory. People were starving under the Czar and were open to anything until 1924 when Lenin died and Stalin created a police/dictatorship/socialist state were millions upon millions suffered and died.
"The soviet union was anything but socialist being pure state capitalism."
W...wait, what? The USSR = capitalism?
You want to explain how you reached that conclusion? 'Cos I'm really confused....
Yes Jeff, pure capitalism, state capitalism no doubt but still capitalism.
Did the workers own the means of production or were they just tools to be used by the masters?
Did they even get to vote for who their masters might be? Nope.
Were they all well fed and housed? Nope.
Sorry, John, but "crappy quality of life" isn't enough to conclude "capitalism."
Society has changed dramatically since we became a nation. I don't argue that certain issues can become better with a socialist outlook but the point is under socialism we not be able to keep many of our rights given to us in the constitution because we would essentially have to live under government control. You give them an inch they're going to take a mile.
No, you don't have to give up rights. Civil rights have always been championed by the socialists. Kennedy was a socialist, LBJ was a socialist. The socialists of the U.S. are usually Democrats.
And your constitution is safe with the capitalists then?
There is nothing in socialism that says you have to live under government control.
John, You really are off the deep end aren't you? There's NOTHING in Socialism that says you have to live UNDER the Government? Yeah, Got it.....and who Governs the people then? Wait....I got it...The Unicorns!
And I thought I was going to be bored tonight....You're actually good entertainment.
The fact that the government can be so corrupted by wealthy people merely highlights the fact that government is a false god.
Government isn't a god, it is, or rather should be, the people. The fact that a few people have taken over government for their own selfish ends doesn't make government bad any more than a woman is ever responsible for her rape.
Governments don't kill people: people kill people (and monkeys do too, if they've got a government).
(With apologies to Eddie Izzard.)
Then monkeys must have governments because monkeys do kill other monkeys.
Ants kill each other and so do meerkats!
In fact most life forms do,so they all must have governments!
Yeah, but when someone "in" government kills someone, it isn't always prosecuted.
I suppose you are right John if humans were the most disciplined and rational beings, but they are not. Doesn't it make more sense to have a system in which everyone benefits from self-interest than a system which pretends self-interest doesn't exist? Government is a self-interest in itself!
"Capitalism is the ideology of common sense... Socialism is the ideology of common cents"
Courtesy Greek One Copyright 2012
Er, Josak,I'm not that old that I remember the Industrial Revolution:)
Actually,in the UK anyway, unemployment benefit was opposed by the socialists who saw it as a tool of the capitalists to keep wages down! You know, a hungry man is an angry man, they knew that and so decided that if they gave a man the absolute minimum to live on he would be less likely to riot and demand work. And they would also set a bench mark for low wages, " well you're getting more than you would on the dole aren't you?"
I know youre not John I just imagine you are more familiar with that period in Britain than I am.
Yeah I am aware of this part of the "things have to get worse to get better" ideology but its still a socalist area.
So we should all set our goals as low as possible....?
Sheesh! I need coffee....Maybe I'll only sip it, I don't want to take it all even though I paid for it all....That might not be FAIR to others....
I lived in Cuba for 3 and a half years I returned to be nearer to my family, I never had any trouble with the authorities there, you should go and educate yourself so you can actually know what you are talking about, since you really have no idea. (EDIT sorry this was meant to be a reply to Deangelo)
The US and UK are working under a Fascistic system, just with different elements of controls. Socialism is an ideal created by the powers that be to increase state control, under the auspices of equality and 'social justice'. Socialism and State Capitalism - two sides of the same coin.
If one wanted to live in a commune with no-one forcing me to pay money to fund it, I would not have a problem. The problem arises when force is involved from a sense of 'duty' to the poor, which is just code wording for 'duty' to the state, a small percentage of which actually ends up in the hands of the poor. I'm a voluntaryist, so as long as your 'Socialism' is a voluntary venture I may be persuaded to give it a try. Legalise freedom.
The best case for socialism is that, without it, the only other recourse to justice for the vast majority of people is revolution.
Those who place wealth and power over people eventually end up with their head in a bucket and a few seconds to contemplate the meaning of life for the first time.
"Those who place wealth and power over people eventually end up with their head in a bucket and a few seconds to contemplate the meaning of life for the first time."
Remember, it isn't only capitalists who have this condition. Politicians have just as big thirst for power, except they are more dangerous because they are the ones with the guns.
This is true, however power now is inseparable from wealth in a similar way to how power and religion were inseparable.
Government that includes people in it for people rather than just in it for the money is required. This could not be socialist or capitalist.
That was the aim of the founding fathers of America, but unfortunately the very limited power given to the federal government was still too much, and has increased exponentially to a point where we have essentially no liberty. With no state, there would be no incentive for corporations to finance liberty destroying legislation.
and of course the liberties that are protected there were (and are) intended to favour the rich traders who made the declaration. This is why the much vaunted liberties do not exist in reality.
The favouring of the rich traders came about through the increased government intervention leading up to the 20th Century. Flat taxes (preferable none) and an absolutely free market favours neither the rich nor the poor.
A poorly thought out statement really: Flat taxes (preferable none) and an absolutely free market favours neither the rich nor the poor.
Lets examine this, first Flat tax rate favors neither the rich nor the poor, well thats simply not the case, if I earn a billion dollars a year and I am taxed one third then my quality of life will remain unaffected if on the other hand I earn thirty thousand and I am taxed one third of my income thats the difference between me and my family living and me and my family starving that obviously favors the rich.
As for no taxes well then you have no government, if you have no government then there are no safeguards for citizens, as mentioned earlier something similar in the terms of safeguard in the workplace context ocurred suring the industrial revolution in Britain, britain was the leader of the world but its people had never been poorer, millions starved to death and men women and children worked 16 hour shifts at miniscule wages just to keep themselves fed then when age caught up with them they either starved no longer able to work or if they were lucky they were accepted into a workhouse where even in their old age they were worked half to death and treated like criminals.
No I do not wish to be insulting but what you suggest is both factually incorrect and morally flawed.
My flat taxes was kind of misleading since I don't agree with taxes at all, but for someone who seems to like to 'Defend Equality' you're not too much in favour of equality of taxes.
But let's get to the point.
Britain, when it was leader of the world, was an Empire, a monolithic government that tried its hardest to expand power whilst giving the population some modicum of freedom in the market, which did bring thousands above the poverty level, whilst not being perfect. The incredible development in that period transformed the average persons living standards for the better. However, does the farmer give his cows more room in the pen because he's respecting their liberties? No, cows with more room tend to be more productive, and more money for the farmer. Thus, the state expanded to our pathetic, debt-ridden, part-socialist, mostly fascist system of today.
Safeguards are created by human beings, not some abstract institution, and would be fairer, more prosperous and more efficient without the government getting in the way. DROs and essentially, people just working together, would provide a safer and freer society than what we have now. You don't need to steal from thriving people to make others survive.
My argument is also the most morally consistent.
Stealing is morally wrong, so therefore, taxes are morally wrong. It really is as simple as that.
But when something is stolen from you, you have no choice.
You can chose not to reap the benefits of society and not pay taxes.
Except it makes a false equivalency between taxation and theft, ergo, your argument is flawed. Consistent, yes, but consistently flawed.
But as Josak explained,a flat tax is not a fair tax, it hits the low earners far harder than the high earners. A flat tax is not equality.
True, the Empire brought thousands above the poverty line, unfortunately it pushed millions below the poverty line.
Safe guards maybe created by human beings but they are also disregarded by human beings. Without government safe guards we would all be eating adulterated food and working in hazardous conditions.
Peoples incomes are forever changing, so a flat tax, whilst still immoral, is more moral than a progressive tax because it offers no incentive to increase ones income. Huge businesses love these kinds of taxes because it ensures that very few new business have the resources to raise their game and offer them competition.
We'll have to compare stats but I'm certain that everyones quality of living was higher after the industrial revolution than before.
Human beings who disregard the safeguards in one area find it difficult to be trusted in another. It is in human beings' interest to cooperate with each other. The government is only there to obstruct that.
I remember that hoary old argument from when I worked on the shop floor, "Oh no, I've had a pay rise and it moves me up a tax bracket, that means I'll get less after my tax rise than I got before it"
I've studied local history especially the Industrial Revolution for many years and I can tell you that every ones quality of living did not increase after the Industrial Revolution. Unless of course you believe that working an 80 hour week and living in a cellar with four other families whilst existing on a diet of bread and potatoes was an improvement!
If what you say about trust is correct then why are so many people still prosecuted for selling food unfit for human consumption? Why so many businesses still slapped on the wrists for killing their workers?
I agree, and have been a Marxist for years. There are a lot of people beginning to now feel the same way. You will get a lot of blasting on here from the neo-con fundementalist Right wing. Be prepared.
No, only that I have never seen cooperation work. The European countries that have socialism are dying and being crushed by socialism and the beaureacracy it creates. I don't think capitalism is the perfect choice, but I don't know what the answer is. We are all in economic tought times - maybe it is capitalism correcting itself - I just don't know. Corruption reigns in both types of economies whether they are socialist or capitalist. So, in the final analysis, I don't know what the answer is to fix all our economic problems. Are there any economic geniuses out there?
Socialism and capitalism are ideals. No such ideals exist in its truest forms bec. economic systems just approximate the ideals through accompanying political system.
Looking at these two ideals, socialism is a much desired system rather than capitalism. People have flaws - selfishness and greed. Humans are imperfect, and thus such social, economic and political systems they create are imperfect.
The most important issue here is that we make sure all the iPads are manufactured as cheaply as possible...
What a wonderful example of a large multinational capitalist company working in harmony within the confines of a communist dictatorship that protects the workers.
Capitalist leeches working within a system created by communist overlords. See.. we can all get along!
Midnight Petrograd... A night watch spots a shadow trying to sneak by. "Stop! Who goes there? Documents!" The frightened person chaotically shuffles through his pockets and drops a paper. A soldier picks it up and reads slowly, with difficulty: "U.ri.ne A.na.ly.sis"... "Hmm... a foreigner, sounds like..." "A spy, looks like.... Let's shoot him on the spot!" Then reads further: "'Proteins: none, Sugars: none, Fats: none...' You are free to go, proletarian comrade! Long live the World revolution!"
I'll see your Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, UK and Germany!...
and I'll raise you communist Albania, Romania and North Korea
That's what happened in Russia. Then Stalin decided to threaten people into making more. There was a big problem though - the ones that were still alive did not know how to do it, because ones that knew - were killed by the system.
Margaret Thatcher,like many others, was clueless about socialism.
Remind me of the current US debt?
John, even though I hate this fact, we control the world's money supply.
It doesn't matter how much we go into debt (from the government's perspective) because we can just print money out of thin air.
I want this practice to end because it's unfair and evil. It also will lead to slavery.
No, monopoly control over money is better known as "the government owns the money supply".
This is EXACTLY socialist.
Quit confusing them.
Let you into a little secret, the government whether capitalist or socialist owns the money supply. If you don't believe me just make some of your own money and start supplying it.
It should not be that way, though. In the United States, when it was first founded, any individual could open a bank and start minting his own money.
Ron Paul wants to return us to that way of life.
No, see, libertarians want to go back to the barter system, where people directly exchange commodities for mutual benefit, and the government can't exert much (if any) control over who trades how much of what in exchange for however much of the other thing.
But they like to call it the "Gold Standard."
Money is a commodity. It is just a widely accepted means of exchange.
It's ironic that you fail to understand that the green sheets of paper in your pocket are a commodity, yet make fun of the gold standard.
Gold has no inherent value*, just like paper money. The only difference between gold money and paper money is how easy it is to control the supply.
Lots of people like to point to the gold standard as some kind of magical spell for making everything okay again, but life wasn't really all that great when we were using the gold standard.
*No, really. What is gold good for? You can't make tools out of it. You can't eat it. You can't drink it. You can't burn it or wear it to keep warm. All it does is sit there and look pretty. Aside from a few very specialized technological applications (which use minute amounts of the stuff), gold isn't very useful at all. Water, on the other hand, is vital: we need it do stay alive. Food? Likewise, only slightly less so than water.
Jeff: NOTHING has inherent value.
NOTHING. NOTHING has inherent value. Not a single thing or good.
Food doesn't have "inherent" value: it merely has value.
What generates value? Demand: I want to live, thus it's valuable to me.
This is why "Pet Rocks" were being sold by the boatloads back in the 70s 80s.
And, Jeff, are you really happy that someone can control the supply of ONE HALF OF ALL TRANSACTIONS? That's theft.
If you control the money supply, then you control how much wealth people have (that is, until they give up on your system. This is inevitable).
"NOTHING has inherent value."
Food and water have inherent value. Without them, you die.
Gold does not. Without it, you don't sparkle.
Nothing has inherent value.
Pop quiz: which one of the following has "more" inherent value:
Steak, beans, rice, wheat, pop, water, chicken, or rosemary.
Struggling to come up with an answer? Of course you are.
This idea of "inherent value" is nonsense. If aliens who eat tungsten came to earth, would tungsten suddenly have inherent value? Of course not. If we all turned into worms, would "animal feces" have inherent value? ew. From the eyes of the fly, rotting animals are "inherently valuable".
Nonsense. These things are merely highly demanded by the consumer, thus they SEEM to have inherent value.
We all need it to survive. The demand is as inelastic as it could be.
Except when there is too much of it. Which is why we drain swamps, bail out boats, and build levees.
But the demand for potable water is always there, especially so when there is too much in the wrong place.
Any commodity, even one we do need in order to survive, loses its value in the marketplace when there is a bigger supply than demand. In a place with plenty of fresh, clean water, who would pay another person for water brought from afar?
It all depends on the circumstances. For some people sewage is waste product that they pay to be taken away. For others, it is precious fertilizer that they pay to have brought in.
The value of anything depends on the people involved and their circumstances.
I already know this, John.
But in a capitalist society, the government does NOT own the money supply. This system HAS existed before, and it DID exist in the US for much of the 19th century.
In the days of Glasnost there was a joke going around Russia;
The train of Communism was moving along with the leaders of Russia on board. Suddenly the train stopped. Stalin said; "Let's shoot the driver" Kruschev said "No! let's rehabilitate the driver" Brezhnev said "Let's just close our eyes and rock back and fore, it will seem that the train is still moving" Gorbachev said "We must jump off the train and shout "The train isn't working"
The point is that no one tried to fix the train, no one ever tried to get the train moving. That was the failure of Russia and the revolution. It was a failure of vision.
The interesting parallel is that we can all see the failures of Capitalism. The boom and bust, the corruption and greed. There is a serious lack of political and moral will to move the train forward it seems to me. Because the way forward would be a co-operative society where goods and services are produced for even distribution.
Most of us would like to see a world free of poverty and sickness, so why is it that any practical move in that direction is called "Godless Socialism"?
Probably because a few, capitalists are afraid and greedy enough to want to keep it all to themselves.
They engender fear into the populous, fear of socialism and a more equitable society.
They do this by spreading lies and rumours and "we" like sheep baa in unison as directed by our masters.
They convince everybody else that they are capitalists too even though the vast majority are just tools in the capitalists tool box..
The problem with socialism is that in every instance where countries have tried this method of "economics" it has ended in a totalitarian regime, and hundreds of millions of people are murdered by their own socialist masters.
Name one country where that has happened? In fact, name me one socialist country!
Russia for starters. Ever heard of it? It's a pretty big place. Not hard to find on a map either.
But pretty easy to ignore otherwise it seems. Russia may have started off as a socialist country (after the revolution, that is) but rapidly left that course when Joe Stalin got on board.
Please do some home work rather than just spouting the party line.
'Socialism' has become a very vague term, and so arguing about it is problematic.
Marx envisioned a dictatorship followed by nirvana. If you endorse the concept of a dictatorship of the proletariat, than you can not be help to accept the idea that a Stalin could arise. Dictators, of any type and ideology, have a habit of wanting to keep their powers.
If by 'socialist' you are simply talking about government-funded programs, then those are here to stay... albeit in different forms and in different extremes in different places. That is despite libertarian ideology.
I think most people are pragmatists and want government to help create well run and efficient social safety nets, but who understand that funding for such programs can only be sustained by the economic growth created by free enterprise. It's great to have golden eggs, but you can't kill the goose to have them.
Yeah, millions of Norwegians have been crushed under the heel of the oppressive totalitarian Norwegian state....oh, wait....
'Margaret Thatcher,like many others, was clueless about socialism'
Everybody was clueless about socialism.
There was real socialism and post-card socialism that was shown to everybody from outside of the closed system. And real,everyday socialism was different to different people. For a regular working guy -one, for a Party member - another. As long as everybody keeps his mouth shut and don't complain.
No unemployment - wonderful!
No homeless, starving - great!
Free medicine, any education free and good - perfect!
What was never shown - labor camps full of people who were thinking differently or tried to make money.
Anybody wants that kind of socialism? Anybody?
But that isn't socialism!
As I asked Onusonus, name me one socialist country.
Yes, it is, John! Well, was. Soviet Union had it all. I was born and lived there till perestroyka. I had free eduacation, including University, free medical help for me and my kids, free summer camps for children, cheap subsidized housing, and I learned early in life how to follow the party line! I was a good learner. All my family were very loyal...
Even if that is what socilaism necessarily entails, and it isn't, I think it would still be a good thing for many mnay third world nations, dissidents in gaol or millions starving to death is an easy choice for me.
Most of Europe is socialist and quite a few countries in the world have socialized medicine.
We, as a society, need to take and combine from existent systems the best features and make them work for us. We need protection in a society from hunger,diseases, ignorance,religious dogmatism, and political corruption. We cannot make everybody happy and rich, but comfortable and confident that no matter what happens he/she is not going to be out on the street,ill and starving - that is the must in a civilized society.
The UK is being crushed by socialism - don't blame capitalism for that! The UK's socialism and health program, while helping all, is helping all into bankruptcy. Your bureaucracy is strangling your country. That was not done by capitalism. The U.S. may be joining you though - that seems to be where we are headed at the moment.
Hm, health spending in the UK, 9% of GDP, health spending in the US, 16% of GDP!
Oh,an d the UK system covers everybody, not just the chosen few.
That isn't what is strangling our country, what is strangling our country is greedy bankers and their mates.
"Why do conservatives think that Greece’s economic crisis was caused by its so-called “socialism”?
Yet they don’t believe that the U.S. economic crisis was caused by our capitalism?
Damn those unions for financing all those sub-prime mortgages! lmao
I’m saying capitalism is the problem. In the United States and Greece."
"Given that the problem in Greece was caused by the lending markets which are only allowed to operate under a capitalistic system, I cannot see how anyone in their right mind would call Greece a socialist country. Only 16% of the revenues went to these so called entitlement programs."
I am guessing that you don't have much connection with the UK. The problems we have at the moment are the result of the insane delusions of the right over the last 30 years. The principal one being that it was possible to run an economy based on consumer borrowing while industry is allowed to die.
Thatcher and Blair both believed it. Both were clearly wrong and neither were socialists.
On which facts, or data, do you base your assumptions?
The Scandinavian countries seem to have the best socialist governments and societies and even they are having economic problems, although not as severe as the U.S. and the rest of Europe. Capitalism hasn't affected them.
I have the feeling that a lot of Americans would just like "Big Daddy" to handle everything from cradle to grave. If so, we have lost what made America great. If we become socialist with cradle to grave by "Big Daddy," I wonder what that would do to the people in the world who have always thought of this as "The Land of Opportunity"? Are we really ready to give "Big Daddy" 50% of our earnings, such as the Norwegians do, and have "Big Daddy" decide how to pass it around to welfare, the military-industrial complex, foreign adventures, etc,, etc., etc. ? Would public education improve, and, if it did, what would be the incentives? If we can't pull together now, would we just settle into being "ho-hum; what does it matter?"
Depends on who your daddy is.
Some want a daddy that tells you how to act and a big police state to make sure you do as they say.
Some want a daddy that makes sure everyone of his children at the least has warm shelter, food, health and education.
We pay either way.
German Democratic Republic.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Don't be taken in by words, look for evidence to back them up.
That's right. So Russia became socialist after the Bolshevik revolution which took the country over by force. Less than half of the Russian congressional Delegates were in fact of the Bolshevik party. After the good and pure revolutionary nice guy Vladimir Lennon, who authorized the systematic murderer of over 200,000 clergymen, who were scalped, crucified and faced other forms of "Bestial tortures" and the other 500,000 religious figures that faced heavy persecution during the Bolshevik era, the power was then relinquished to the "real" bad guy, Stalin. Stalin was the number one guy under the good and honest hard working socialist era of Lenin.
So the two people who lead the exact same party had nothing to do with each other and in no way did Lenin make it possible for Stalin to usurp power even though that's exactly what Lenin did.
Lennin(murderer of hundreds of thousands of innocent people)=good guy.
Stalin (murderer of millions of innocent people)=bad guy.
Makes perfect sense!
Something to think about:
Man was here BEFORE capitalism.
Capitalism did not arrive into being with the Big Bang.
Capitalism is just another socioeconomic system--one of man--that man has utilized over the centuries. It will pass, just like every other system before IT.
Greece sacrificed to save dying EU:
http://goldsilver.com/video/saving-the- … -dying-eu/
Your taxes pay for the police force that protects you from the thieves.
That hoary old argument is the reason the middle-class is disappearing.
As far as the industrial revolution is concerned, I'll have to get back to you when I can back up my argument with sources.
All of that is because we exist in a system where bad businesses are not punished by the market forces for being bad. They are prevented from being punished by state intervention and lack of consumer freedom. For example, the consumer is in a much better position to decide what is fit for their consumption than anybody else, but that job is left to the FDA, who approve things like aspartame and give subsidies to farmers that use GMO crops. Businesses have little incentive to be fair at the moment.
That hoary old argument . . . I don't understand how that can be responsible for the disappearing middle class.
Save yourself the bother of looking for sources to back your argument, if they exist they'll be biased as thingy.
Lack of consumer freedom! Bull thing. You eat some nice take away chicken and feel ill. Do you put it down to the unfit for human consumption chicken that's been washed in bleach to kill the smell? And how do you tell before you've eaten it that it is going to make you ill?
How do you tell if you are eating GM crops unless the government makes labelling mandatory cos the farmers won't do it of their own free will.
You don't think there is any incentive for bias in the other direction too?
Open up a non-profit that goes round inspecting restaurants and farms for quality and safety. Make a website ranking the restaurants and farms, and flag those who have low standards, or won't let you in. If your website is popular enough (hell, wouldn't you support something like that?) the restaurants and farms will only be too happy to adhere to the standards the consumers enjoy. It also allows for greater freedom and a whole lot more options depending on what you want from your food. Some people don't mind GMOs. If they want to eat that shit, then that's their prerogative. No government required, no money stolen to fund it, and there is a whole lot more freedom.
One great example of this in action is the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification), which receives no subsidies from the film industry or the government. There is a demand from parents for indication as to what content is going to be in the films they let their children watch. Studios and theatres want to be able to advertise their films properly and not put parents off from the cinema after a bad experience, so have an incentive to screen the films to the BBFC before release. It's the best form of classification I've seen and offers a proper public service that works, whilst taking no money from them.
We're dealing with different beasts, sure, but I see no reason why this couldn't work.
We already have non-profits that go around inspecting things, The Soil Association, The Michelin Guide, Rough Planet and many more that elude me at the moment but like the BBFC the are advisory only and anybody choosing to ignore their recommendations can do so with little risk of punishment.
To say that the BBFC takes no money from the public is wrong as well, they are funded by the film industry who ultimately receive all their money from the public.
The punishment comes when they lose customers for not adhering to popular standards.
'The Human Centipede 2' was forced to be cut because it was so grotesque and wouldn't have been classified and released at all otherwise.
By the same extension, restaurants that kill people tend not to do very well!
It also says on the BBFC website that it receives no funds from the film industry. Perfect example of people working together without guns being forced to their heads!
"In order to preserve its independence, the BBFC’s income is derived solely from the fees it charges for its services,"
And who exactly does it charge for its services?
Nice dream but unfortunately many people ignore popular standards, check your local paper. Ours regularly features restaurants that do not meet minimum standards, or in other words are vermin infested with little care taken over food safety. Then look at how many people still eat there.
Things do not have to be as a bad as to kill people to be unacceptable.
It seems that there are some gullible people here. They think that any country or regime that calls itself Socialist, must be Socialist. Anyone can call themselves whatever they want, it doesn't make it so.
It seems that the other point being made in these arguments is that the modern "Right" want government out of the picture so that business can grow unfettered to do as it wills. While the "Left" want government to provide an environment where the individual can have complete freedom.
I vote left.
You don't think that people calling themselves 'Left' have some other agenda than giving the individual 'complete freedom'?
Oh I see what you mean. Then you are right there, but they key is that there is no government involved.
Well, if they want to eat there, why not? It's their choice to want to kill themselves. YOU recognise that those restaurants have low standards, so what the hell do you need the government for?
Erm, it was local government that drew my attention to the situation.
And you think that, without it, it just would not be done?
Are not the health inspectors of the government?
Of course it wouldn't! Have you the authority to walk into somebody else's work place and order them to close it down if it needed closing down?
No but if you make a mutually beneficial deal with them, it would be more moral and more efficient:
"I, with my ability to reach everyone in the local area, will tell everyone how great your business is if you let me in and have good standards when i inspect you. If you do not let me in, I will be forced to flag your restaurant as one that does not adhere to the popular standards"
If there is a will, there is a way. If human beings WANT to have good food, they will find a way to do it without putting guns to peoples heads. It's the state that actively gets in the way of that natural human trait to cooperate. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.
There's the rub, not too many people want good food, well nothing like as many as want cheap food.
So? You want good food, and apparently a lot of people do, so someone is going to give it to you. What does it matter if everyone else wants to eat rubbish?
If people fall ill they look to the health services to make them well again. They are also non-productive when ill. Therefore it is to everybody's benefit if people don't poison themselves.
In that case wouldn't it be in the market's interest to get people to eat well? If the government regulates it (and it does it badly, may I add) there is no incentive for the companies to make their food healthier on their own. The largest of them will even lobby the government to change the regulations to their liking (heavy regulations on home food growth etc.) so that they don't have to bother making the effort to improve the quality of their food! This is the cause of the chronic addiction to McDonalds in the west!
You seem obsessed with this idea that everything and everybody would be absolutely perfect if government would just leave people to get on with things.
Not perfect, but better, and moral. Now I'd be interested to learn how you see that the current system is working, or whatever system you advocate would be better than what we have now.
I'm at a loss! How could it be better and more moral if we had people dying from food poisoning?
Frankly, I think that with regards to food there needs to be stronger powers to stop the bad ones trading at all.
People don't want others to die of food poisoning. The market doesn't want to lose customers and people don't want to lose their friends and family. The fact is that there is a demand to keep people healthy whether government is there or not. Wouldn't you do all you could to stop that from happening? We're human beings - we naturally want to help each other.
You probably could stop every food poisoning corporation if you had to, but you would have to implement a police state. Look at the disastrous drug war for proof - and drug use has not gone down. You can stop every undesirable action on Earth, but you would probably need to steal everybody's money to pay for it, and implement a system so draconian as to destroy civil liberties. It is the only natural progression from apparently benign regulations after they do nothing to help. The statists answer will always be to throw more money at it - adding fuel to the fire.
I started this thread with hopes that someone on the right could give us a decent argument. Unfortunately that hasn't happened. The prevailing wind seems to be either "Socialism is bad because Stalin shot dissidents" or the peculiar argument that if the laborer is paid the true value of his labor he'll stop working. As the posts made by John Holden and Josak amplify. The right has no clear argument against the social and economic implications of a Socialist society. Understandable if there is no understanding of what Socialism is.
There is also no real defense of the current system and that is not hard to understand either. The financial collapse of the banks and the dynamics of a system that looks for cheap labor thus reducing the pool of consumers who can afford to purchase the goods produced can't have many reasonable supporters.
Unfortunately what I am also seeing is a "Left wing" who dream about the collapse of Capitalism but do not have Socialist answers for the problems that then occur.
Reminds me of Thatcher who claimed that the rich needed more money to motivate them whilst the poor were motivated by less money!
I'm sorry. Did you read my post distinguishing free enterprise from capitalism?
How can socialism even come to mind when it comes to financial responsibility? When we take a look at the trouble that the US government is in it should become clear when you see that half of our deficite is dedicated to entitlement programs, that they are nothing more than a giant money hole, and the only solution to fix the problem would be to eliminate all of the unproductive members of society, As has been done in the past by all previous socialist countries.
Case in point just listen to the words of socialist elitists like George Shaw. The only solution to non productive members in a socialist society is flat out murder.
For the same reason the United States has dabbled in eugenics and it is such a hot issue today. Because potential "undesirables" in society drag down our social programs.
The Co-op Bank in the UK came through the crisis very well. It does only ethical investing in real businesses, and does not play the money markets or deal in derivatives, and dodgy loans. Socialists can get it right!
That is a free choice the Co-op makes. Socialism would have this enforced. I know which I prefer.
You mean you'd prefer banks that gamble with your money and use it unethically!
The only thing holding their unethical practices together is the government. They even actively reward it i.e. the bail-out.
No, the only thing holding their unethical practices even slightly in check is the government, they don't do enough I'll agree but do you really believe that without government the banks would suddenly become ethical!
An "audit of almost 400 foreclosures in San Francisco found that 84 percent of them appeared to be illegal" http://thkpr.gs/ADPmHr
Those foreclosures from the housing bubble that the government created right? And why aren't they being prosecuted if they are illegal? Because they WANT it to happen. The government only has enough interest in stopping unethical practices to get themselves reelected.
I admit there is uncertainty in any proposed system, but the difference between what we are arguing for is that you want more of exactly the thing that holds this mess together and I'm arguing for less.
You mean the housing bubble that was created by recklessly lending to people who couldn't pay the loan back, and then bundling those mortgages into mortgage-backed securities? And then selling those securities (and offloading the risk) as if they were incredibly safe instead of incredibly risky? And then when the securities proved worthless (as their creators knew them to be), and the unsuspecting buyers lost all their money, the ripple effect of so many people (and pension funds, and so on) losing so much money at once caused a lot of people who would otherwise have been able to pay their mortgages to lose their jobs, thus making even more mortgage-backed securities worthless, etc etc?
Yeah, the government didn't do that.
But it sure is easier to take a complicated problem that's hard to understand, and throw up your hands and say, "It's all the government's fault."
To be fair, the government does share some of the blame: they removed the Glass-Steagal act, and other barriers to these and other unscrupulous, fraudulent practices in the financial industry. If you want to blame government, blame it for what it's actually guilty of: deregulation and lax oversight of those regulations that remained.
The banks were ALLOWED to do that through the warped economic model enforced by the Federal Reserve. It was Bernanke who wanted the bubble - fudged inrests rates etc, allowed for all of those risky assets to be sold because the market is artificially 'good'. Oh and guess what? It collapses. Then the government asks for trillions of dollars from the tax payer to fix it, i.e. pay off all of its bankster friends and further centralise economic power. It seems like WIN/WIN for the government banking cartel establishment to me.
This could never have happened if the government just left well enough alone because the market isn't dumb enough by itself to buy worthless assets. We're not working with the evil capitalist bankers and a government that wags its finger and does 'what it can', we're working with the Mafia. The government represents Wall Street as its gang of thugs. Without the thugs, the Mafia is powerless.
Nope...the criminals were the private banks lenders, not the CRA.
And even IF the banks gave loans because they were mandated to do so: because the banks TOOK MONEY from these people, and REFUSED to give them home loans...hello!!! Red lining is against the law.
That still didn't give them the right to sell sub-primes, which they knew were a scam.
Yes, but why do people who stood to gain nothing from the shennanigans of freemarket capitalist greedy banks have to lose their jobs and homes? I know which I prefer!
Excellent post. First and foremost, I wish to state that I think the diversity of opinions is critical to humanity.
When I analyze the economics of the United States and with the recent bailouts and the shift in economics to the pension funds, I must question the true private nature of gigantic pension funds. If they are too big to fail, are we recognizing a socialistic or "cooperative" economic system?
Secondly, I believe the "test" for all of us is to see how very similar we are. I am a citizen of the United States and very proud yet I recognize I live in a world and pride myself upon being a citizen of the world.
I feel we must all see each other as similar not different. Anyone hurting is a harm to us all. Anyone who cannot speak their opinion is a harm to us all. Economics - capitalism has its place but let's call a spade a spade - don't deceive the people.
One of the greatest threats to democracy is a lie, however, the greatest threat is not being able to hear the truth or a diverse opinion.
I've read some of the replies on this thread and some of them make sense but my own philosophy is simple and proven:
Socialism does not and can never work because it is simply contrary to human nature. No ifs, no buts, no maybes... fact! Socialism is the brainchild of drugged up or drunken dreamers in the fantasy lands of 19th century London's opium dens.
Capitalism is based on human nature, the desire to improve and better oneself and is therefore the only system of government or progression which can ever prove successful in any form.
Before the communists (I do not use the word lightly) shoot me down in flames, that does not mean that a truly capitalist society should not make provision for the unfortunate, the less well off, or those who are unable or less able to support themselves and their families. Of course it should! That is what any Christian culture is all about and by pursuing the capitalist road to acquire greater wealth, all benefit either directly or indirectly.
Gordon! Everything there is perfectly reasonable and sensible, except for the second paragraph and the sentence that begins "Socialism" Unfortunately that spoils a perfectly good response by putting in something completely untrue and defamatory.
I would like to address the best part of your argument though. You say a truly Capitalized society would take care of the less fortunate. How then do you explain the business that grows through the work of it's employees then closing up shop to go to a third world country and paying someone 50c a day. Exploiting their poverty.
You make an excellent point about Capitalism being based on human nature. You also say that the desire to improve is the only way forward. I totally agree with that. It's a classic example of the progression of humanity.
Cannibalism was the original human nature. If you caught your enemy you ate him. Then someone figured out that if you kept him barely alive you could make him work and feed you and your family, so slavery became human nature. Then, when the slave population got too large they were set "Free" given land but forced to pay taxes and were drafted at a moments notice. Feudalism became the norm. Then came the industrial revolution and capitalism is now "Human nature"
Where we disagree is in seeing Capitalism as the pinnacle of human achievement instead of seeing it as just one more step on the rung of freedom.
ianto, thank you for taking the time to address my response! It is refreshing and appreciated. I hope I can return the favour...
I will try to do so in a logical sense, if not necessarily chronologically:
Firstly, the cannabilism issue is one I hope we can agree to lay aside. While it was (and remains!) prevalent in certain societies and cultures, I don't think it adds much value to this debate!
Keeping slaves and making them work for the "privileged" classes can not be disputed. That was early capitalism and mankind moved on to feudalism in some instances but in others, a tiered form of commerce. Much like the beehive, there are leaders, there are drones and all have their obligations to fulfill in society. Where would the honey come from if we were all queens...???
Capitalism is not about subversion in modern times but about opportunity. While the legendary American president Abraham Lincoln may have over-simplified the issue by deeming all men to be born equal, the concept is fair and just. It is what a man makes of his opportunities that defines him and society should afford every man (or woman!!!) the opportunity to achieve the limits of their abilities and ambitions.
I actually agree with you about sending contracts to Third World countries for inferior goods or services at vastly reduced prices. That is where I believe sensible and moderate Government should come in to play. Capitalism is of course about economics and the freedom to choose the most economically viable source of labour and materials but this is where I believe modern sensibilites and development should come in to play. Freedom of choice is one thing - inappropriate suppression and exploitation is quite another.
I'm afraid I can never see socialism as a viable option so long as humanity is the prevalent species on the planet. Simply because it is against human nature. You appear to be a learned man, so I am sure you are as familiar with the works of Orwell and Huxley, as you are Trotsky and Marks.
"All animals are equal - but some are more equal than others...?"
Not bad Aya but I would challenge " Under socialism, it is the state that owns things or some variation thereof."
Under socialism it is the worker that owns things or some variation there of.
John, I agree that under socialism it is not always exactly the state that owns the business directly, but it is also _not_ the worker.
I am distinguishing collective versus individual ownership.
If a worker OWNS part of the company, then they can SELL part of the company.
This is how "owning things" works.
This is how "the stock market" works.
This is why John's definition of Socialism is incorrect - it's actually capitalism.
If the stockholder is not at risk for the torts of the company, the stock is overvalued. This in turn allows people to trade in ownership of something they do not control.
Under free enterprise, if you own it, you control it, and you are responsible for what it does jointly and severally with other owners. Take away one of these requirements, and it's not free enterprise anymore.
But who is the state if not the worker?
That is of course in a ideal world where the state isn't owned by corporations.
The state is _not_ the worker. The state isn't any one person. It's a lot of people getting to vote about what happens to other people, without having any real stake in the matter.
When you work in a business that you do not own, it is not in the least helpful to say that you have a one-in-a-million vote about what happens to you or the business.
Collectivism disempowers people, no matter what you call it. And when it's all a question of voting about it, it's always the politicians who win. This is true whether they are the Chairman of the Board or the Chairman of the Party!
When you own your business, nobody gets a vote but you.
Who is the state if not the worker?
I dunno, but about 25 minutes ago you were on another anti-capitalist forum yelling how businesses own government.
... stay consistent.
Not at all inconsistent, the state should be the worker but is hijacked by capitalist corporations.
....corporations who have stock...
... which are owned by the people.....
So if I buy stock in, say, Trump enterprises I can tell them to butt out of government and they'll immediately go!
Which are owned by some people.
Every time I hear "The People", I feel a chill. It's a term that socialists use to refer to the collective. Believe it or not, even Jefferson was guilty of that sometimes.
As societies become complex, trading becomes complex. Businesses are interconnected and there is specialization. People want business to be done in easy and fast manner.
"everybody who works for the company owns a share of that company,"
Isn't this what's going on with GM now?
Maybe the problem is the fundamental nature or the corporation.
The primary tenant of the corporation is return on investment for the investors - period.
The purpose of buying stock is to make a profit, in most cases.
But voting stock also is a control mechanism to select leaders.
Stockholders would be well served by having leaders for the corporation that would help the business run well and make a profit. To do so, the leaders would have to be knowledgeable about what the business does, including employee management and consumer relations.
However, when people who are not at risk for the value of the corporation and the damage it causes others can run it, they make bad decisions. Sometimes even intentionally.
Maybe why we have good and bad people. Certainly the good deserve more.
Just came across this:
Global bank resignations
Resignations Global Banks ....
1 World Bank CEO Zoellick resigns
2 Anz Bank CFO Australia resigns
3 Nicaraqua Central Bank Pres Rosales resigns
4 Credit Suisse Chief Joseph Tan resigns
5 GERMAN PRESIDENT Christian Ruff resigns
6 Royal Bank of Scotland Austrailin CEO Stephen Williams resigns
7 Kuwait Central Bank CEO resigns
8 Slovenia TWO largest Banks CEO's (2) resign
9 Bank of India CEO Chaturvedi resigns
10 Tamilnad Mercantile Bank CEO resigns
11 GOLDMAN SACHS CEO Blankenfein to resign (Nothing printed on this yet UNLESS this JUST happened. Last article said he is not stepping down in 2011). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_858647.html
Bulldog75: THERE ARE MANY DETAILS TO THIS. TAKE THE LINKS AND DO ONE'S RESEARCH. BLESSINGS. PUT THE PIECES OF THE PUZZLE TOGETHER. THIS IS PART OF YOUR WORLD AND YOUR MONEY, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY.
5) Feb. 18, 2012 / GERMAN PRESIDENT Christian Ruff resigns http://www.dailymail.co. ··· ign.html
6) Feb. 15, 2012 / Royal Bank of Scotland Austrailin CEO Stephen Williams resigns http://blogs.wsj.com/dea ··· ep-down/
7) Feb. 13, 2012 / Kuwait Central Bank CEO resigns http://www.washingtonpos ··· ory.html
8) Feb. 15, 2012 / Nova Kreditna Banka Maribo CEO resigns http://www.bloomberg.com ··· gns.html
9) Feb. 15, 2012 / Nova Ljubljanska Banka CEO resigns http://www.bloomberg.com ··· gns.html
10) Feb. 6, 2012 / Bank of India CEO Chaturvedi resigns
11) Feb. 10, 2012 / Tamilnad Mercantile Bank CEO resigns http://www.business-stan ··· /464259/
12) Feb. 18, 2012 / GOLDMAN SACHS CEO Blankenfein Asked to resign, says No. http://www.huffingtonpos ··· 647.html
13) Swiss Central Bank Chief resigns http://www.nytimes.com/2 ··· ion.html
14) http://ampedstatus.com/the-wall-street- … omprehend/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzW5Kb8u … embedded#!
The factions are coming apart! IMO
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/21 … r-exposed/
The Leo Wanta story! Gordon Duff wrote about it before. And you can read it on Global Analysis and Intelligence Report, or Arctic Beacon. Or just google it....
it's coming DOWN! The stuff is really hitting the fan. We've been Hoodwinked
Ft Hood....stolen gold, then replaced. These dudes are Thiefs to the highest degree!
by Charles James 7 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 in a hub or hubs I really would like clarity on what exactly the conservative...
by James Smith 5 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 aggressive intervention in the economy or you do not.Since Republicans are...
by Peeples 4 years ago
What is the big deal about socialism?Can someone explain to me why Americans (USA) typically say "socialist" in a negative way. I've been doing some research and many of these "socialist" societies are quite happy AND well provided for. So what is the big deal? Why are so many...
by Elliott_T 7 years ago
I'm a Capitalist - what that means to me is that the closest thing to an ideal economy we can achieve is one where the government has almost no interference in the private business sector whatsoever. I think you can put Capitalism into one word: Freedom. The freedom to innovate, grow, succeed, or...
by Deforest 3 years ago
poor" by Gore Vidal. He added that the rich are living off the federal government (contracts and tax breaks...).I definitively agree with him. Your opinion?
by Brian 7 years ago
I was talking with a group of friends the other day. and I suggested that there should be a national tax, where the money collected should be distributed evenly among every U.S. citizen, and I was labled as a socialist.I don't understand what would be so wrong about distributing that kind of money...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|