Summit of the Americas

[aramike]

[Menchise]

[aramike]

[aramike]

I just thought of something. You say that socialism removes the difference in social status caused by financial restraints. Actually, I think it would WORSEN that problem.

Sure, the janitor may not have less consumables than the doctor, however, how would YOU feel if your skills were judged to be "less" than the next person? How would YOU feel if you thought you could be something more than the GOVERNMENT thinks you can be? How would you feel if the government held you to doing something you despised? How would you feel if you didn't have the opportunity to better yourself in the manner that YOU SEE FIT?

That is a key aspect of individualism - making yourself out to be what YOU want to be, in the manner that YOU want to do it.

[Guest Apollyon]

I feel as if I am entering an arena where two giants are calmly staring at each other and talking about something on which they disagree. If they shift around too much then I will be crushed. But here goes.

Here is a thought. Menchise seems to be assuming that capitalism forces/causes people to stop regarding the feelings of others. (correct me if I'm wrong) People choose to regard or disregard others of their own free will, no matter which economic system they live under. Even if everyone had the same amount of consumables they would still find a way to feel superior. A manager is still a manager, he has power over other people, no matter the economic system in which he exists. Often power, and not money, is the driving force behind superiority. And the janitor is still going to feel like sh*t because that is what he cleans up. I would not enjoy being told I had to be a janitor just because some people don't clean up after themselves. (I seem to be wandering here so I'll try to get back on track. Sorry, all this philosophy hurts my head sometimes, but it is very enjoyable to talk about)

If people choose to be nicer to each other, to treat each other humanely, then either capitalism or socialism will work wonderfully. However, socialism assumes that people are going to be perfect, while capitalism provides for them to be imperfect (with consequences) while still providing the freedom to be perfect if they choose. I am not perfect, nor will I or my children or my children's children ever be, so I choose capitalism.

quote:

---

First, what you've just described socialism is NO different than capitalism in the production regard. People who don't work, don't eat. So, what is the primary difference?

The government CONTROLS what people DO to eat.

---

I agree with this completely.

[ 05-07-2001: Message edited by: Apollyon ]

[aramike]

Good post!

[Menchise]

[aramike]

[Guest]

quote:

---

That post goes way back to the start of this issue. I wasn't ready to "come out" at that time because being a Socialist tends to make everyone assume that you're crazy (I think Jaguar still thinks that I am, at least politically). I have been very open about my Socialist beliefs since then.

---

Yep, I think you are absolutely and totally bonkers, you are totally nuts to even think that such a system would work.

Like Aramike said, you have taken the people equation out of it, and until you can turn us all into little drones that take orders without question, then your system will fail and always has failed.

People hunger for more, more money, more things, better food, nicer car, nicer house, better education, better computer(that would be me), ad nauseum. In a socialist system you would have to take that hunger away(which you can't, it's built into all humans), in a capitalist system, it's what keeps the engine chuggin along.

So yes, I think you're crazy, I think that this has a religious intensity for you, and no matter how we explain the holes, you will continue on about how great Socialism is. Sorry, it will never happen, facts are facts, and you are a fanatic, because you are ignoring those facts.

Oh and boy do I have an example for you about Socialism.

The Pilgrims that landed at Plymouth rock, yes, those pilgrims.

When they first got here, they decided to try your system. Everything that was created by anyone was then owned by everyone. You grew food, it went into the kitty, you made horseshoes, it went into the kitty, if you made cloth, went into the kitty, then it was divied up evenly between them all. Guess what, no one had more then anyone else, no one could be jealous of what someone else had, because they had it too. Guess what? They almost starved to death the FIRST winter. Why you ask, why do something when you weren't gonna get anything for it? That was the problem, why work when all of that work goes into the community pot and I don't get anything more then anyone else, and these were religious people, who had been taught and raised to think of everyone else first, before themselves.

The Indians saved them from this folly, and they went to a capitalist type system immediatley after, and guess what? No one in that community starved to death again, disease, war etc. yes, but not starvation.

Your system has been tried before, and it never has and NEVER WILL work!!

[ 05-07-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Guest Shingen]

Well actually, if you were living in a Star Trek world where you could convert matter to energy and back into matter, therefor effectively rendering the WHOLE economic system obsolete, then socialism probably would work because then if you needed anything all you would have to do is go to your replicator and get it. No one would have to worry about labor or supply or demand and everyone could follow their own goals and dreams in happy little fairy land with poka-dot marshmellow dreams!

Until that happens, I'll stay a capitalist, and you Menchise, can move to china.

[ 05-07-2001: Message edited by: Shingen ]

[Tekrebel]

Jaguar:

So yes, I think you're crazy, I think that this has a religious intensity for you, and no matter how we explain the holes, you will continue on about how great Socialism is.

So yes, I think you're crazy, I think that this has a religious intensity for you, and no matter how we explain the holes, you will continue on about how great Capitalism is.

--

Menchise AND Aramike has raised some very interesting points here and I think we should not end this in a religious war thing. In my opinion, we have to be open-minded about other ideas, as crazy as they may sound. After all, it is the way society progresses, by discovering new ways of thinking and experimenting with new systems. Just because something doesn't appear to work the first or seem impossible to accomplish, it doesn't mean we have to give up on the dream and stop trying to better ourselves.

[Guest]

This is NOT a religious war, good grief Tekrebel!!

I was only saying that no matter how many times we have punched holes in the fabric of his beliefs, he hangs onto them like what he says is still true. It is LIKE a religion to him, not A religion, good grief.

[echo]

Just popping in to be sure you guys aren't going to get personal.....

xoxoxo

[Menchise]

quote:

---

This is NOT a religious war, good grief Tekrebel!!

I was only saying that no matter how many times we have punched holes in the fabric of his beliefs, he hangs onto them like what he says is still true. It is LIKE a religion to him, not A religion, good grief.

---

Jaguar, if I followed that kind of reasoning, I could call you and Aramike fanatics about Capitalism. On a number of occasions where I have tried to explain something to Aramike, he reads it out of context and explains the flaws of a system that is different from what I was meaning to describe. So I try to provide a more detailed explanation in my next post to clear up the misunderstanding, but he still ends up misinterpreting some aspects of what I'm saying. This is partly due to the way I have expressed my arguments (I have been trying to compact information that requires an entire essay down to a few sentences), but is also due to Aramike's prejudicial assumptions about what Socialism is. Whenever I say the word 'government', he instantly thinks about the word 'oppression', because he still holds to the assumption that because a Socialist is talking about government, that government must eventually be oppressive. I don't blame him for that because I used to do the same thing all the time when I first started discussing the issue seriously (from the Capitalist position originally) with a Socialist who had actually read books by Marx and Engels from the left and Hayek and Friedman from the right (I haven't). Socialists have different interpretations of concepts. When I first read Marx, I couldn't understand a word of it because I wasn't used to the abstract expression of his arguments. When one of my University lecturers explained the Socialist interpretations of concepts to me last year (and continues to fill in a few gaps occasionally), it all started making sense. Unfortunately, I'm nowhere near as proficient at explaining things as my former lecturer is.

This debate is always going to go nowhere in an online discussion forum because each argument in an issue such as this requires at least one full essay with background research to explain everything clearly (Marx needed three volumes to clearly explain how Capitalism works and what's wrong with it). Essays require days or even weeks to write properly, and forum threads can disappear within a week without replies.

I think we should let go of this issue now before it creates the longest thread in history. What do you say?

[ 05-07-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[Guest]

The facts are this,

CAPITALISM WORKS, SOCIALISM DOES NOT!!!

That be the bottom line, we have over 5000 years of history to show this to be the truth.

The falacy is that liberals and Socialists cannot look at the facts of history and realize that the basic concepts of Socialism are flawed, and always will be. They know that the population at large would never accept such a system, that is why they disarm us first. Why wouldn't the population at large accept Socialism, if it's so great? Because it's not. Only Professors at liberal colleges, with degrees and no REAL experience in the REAL world would even consider that Socialism has a snowballs chance in hell of working.

Socialism is the religion of a bunch of Elitist, intelligencia, who think they know how to run our lives better then we do ourselves. It is the last bastion of the overeducated, who do not have a clue how Capitalism works and why it works so well.

In Capitalism, Life is what you make it, in Socialism, it is what the government makes it.

I'll make my own life, thank you very much, I have the drive and ambition to be successful, if you do not, well, that's your problem.

I enjoy my freedom under Capitalism, and I have the facts that prove that it works and works well, sure, it's unfair sometimes, but hey, life's a *****!!!

No, capitalism is not a religion with me, it is a necessity!!! I do not have FAITH that it works, I have 5000 years of civilization to prove that it does.

[aramike]

First off, the idea that I've taken ANYTHING out of context is insulting. Please show me where I've done such a thing.

quote:

---

On a number of occasions where I have tried to explain something to Aramike, he reads it out of context and explains the flaws of a system that is different from what I was meaning to describe.

---

Oh, that's right - it couldn't POSSIBLY be the fact that there are any flaws in that system.

quote:

---

. Whenever I say the word 'government', he instantly thinks about the word 'oppression', because he still holds to the assumption that because a Socialist is talking about government, that government must eventually be oppressive.

---

Alright, now this is ridiculous. Here's the FACTS, for any paying attention:

When you say government, I do NOT immediately think "oppression". It is when you say CONTROL. There is NO other way for a government to enforce the system you describe without OPPRESSING the freedoms on the INDIVIDUAL.

Everyone would HAVE to be in AGREEMENT as to what they are supposed to do, when the government (local or otherwise) TELLS them what to do ... PERIOD. If agreement CANNOT be established (since when has the human race agreed upon ANYTHING?), then the government (local or otherwise) must use more DIRECT methods of enforcing established production requirements. The ONLY DIRECT WAY for a government to do this is OPPRESSION ... PERIOD.

So far, you've avoided explaining a few simple points of yours which are completely flawed:

1: How would the government enforce production? Is it, "don't work, don't eat"? Considering that tasks are ASSIGNED, this is OPPRESSIVE.

2: You said that people would not have "lesser" feelings because there would not be differing compensation. I then asked you the question as to HOW the people assigned to MENIAL tasks would feel as opposed to those assigned to more trumpeted tasks. In other words, I have proposed to you the fact that labor divisions would STILL exist, and you have yet to point out why the otherwise is true.

3: You've said that efficiency would be increased due to less of a production surplus. In other words, you are suggesting that there would be just the right amount of goods produced to meet demand. I then pointed out that there is NO WAY to predict demand. So, WITHOUT surplus existing, shortages would be a frequent inevitability.

On the OTHER hand, the government could CONTROL demand, but what is that?

Oppression.

4: You pointed to a free educational system open to all individuals. This must not be age discriminant or otherwise, lest it favor a social class. You then pointed out that if someone wanted to increase their status in the workforce, they need only go to school to develop the prerequisite skills.

However, under YOUR system, each citizen is required to essentially produce their own goods. Tell me how a person would be able to continue their education when that would detract from the good he receives.

Sure, you could say that the AMOUNT of goods is dependant upon the amount of work done, but that wouldn't jive with your system either - that would essentially create a capitalist society without money. Social division would result from one man aquiring more goods than the next man.

Also, you cannot say that people would be granted "free" goods when continuing their FREE education, either. Why? Two things could result:

• Production shortages due to decreased workforce due to educational leaves.

• Menial workforce would be depleted, and as such, one workforce would be short of people. Who's going to be the janitor if they can simply go to school?

5: This one goes with point #4. You say that people are allocated to jobs when the desired job is not available. In other words, if there are no "good" jobs available and tons of janitor work available, OVER qualified people would be FORCED into mopping floors. Being FORCED to do something is OPPRESSIVE.

Menchise, I am following the system as you described it to a fault. The bottom line is, it could NEVER work without SOME measure of government intervention to FORCE people to do things they are unwilling to do. THAT, is called "OPPRESSION". There is *NO* way around that.

You can ignore the FACTS all you want, but they still remain FACTS. And considering the FACT that you have yet to challenge the key points that I've listed, you seem to take a "religious" stance. I'm not making this into my "religious" stance, because I have FACTS to back up EVERYTHING I challenge you on. Plus, I HAVE challenged EACH one of your points. The only point I've made that YOU'VE actually challenged with a measure of sense is the SEMANTIC definition of "individualism". Considering the semantics mean nothing in the real world, I don't consider this a great stride for your argument.

Moving on, your argument makes SEVERAL unfounded and baseless assumptions:

• People will cooperate and embrace this system.

• People will not revert to trade of goods thusly aquiring wealth.

• Enough people will undergo adequate training to supply the HIGHLY SKILLED professions when they could reap the same benefits with professions of lower prestige.

• Worst assumption - EVERYTHING will magically BALANCE itself out so your system will work. Without this automatic balancing system, the government would be FORCED to OPPRESS people into falling into the system.

• People will respect the authority of their peers. Hard to assume because of equality stance.

• People will accept oppression into things they DESPISE simply for equality. This is termed "unjust equality".

Time to wake up. Your argument has SEVERE flaws in it. When you make unfounded assumptions (that HISTORY has proven baseless), your ENTIRE argument is essentially a mere practice in blind ideology. When you don't even RECOGNIZE the inherent flaws of your argument, it is essentially religious because of its baselessness.

YOUR interpretation of socialism is destructive. It simply replaces the economy with NO real benefit to society, as all the reasons you've outlined are EQUALLY detrimental to society as the capitalist system. The socialist system you've outlined ADDS problems as stated in my list. All in the name of some bizarre measure of equality: everyone is EQUALLY screwed.

I indeed know your argument well. It appears as though you've ignored mine in pursuit of a fantasy Shangi-La. I will READILY admit that capitalism has its flaws, but the EMBEDDED human desire for freedom is NOT one of them.

[Menchise]

NOW we're going somewhere. I guess it's essay time from now on.

Here goes:

In this post I'm going to talk about one of the SEVERE flaws of Capitalism. I'll discuss Socialist alternatives some other time (one must understand the problem before seeking a solution ). Before I start, take note that I am only looking for counter-arguments to my arguments against Capitalism at this time. If anyone of your counter-arguments are not relevant to this, I will not respond to them. This thread needs more focus.

The Causes of Oppression of the Working Class

1. Surplus Value

Hypothesis: The Capitalist production cycle is inherently oppressive to the working class.

The owner of the means of production possesses the capital that will be invested in production. The capital is used to purchase commodities. The commodities are assembled into a certain arrangement by labour to make a value-added product. The value-added product is sold. The money from those sales goes back into the hands of the owner. The owner pays the worker a wage that is proportionate to labour power. The owner takes the surplus value as profit.

What makes this oppressive are the last two sentences. The worker is paid a wage that is proportionate to labour power instead of labour value, which is wrong because the value of a product is proportionate to the amount of labour that is put into it, thus it is the worker who makes the item profitable in the first place. When the worker is paid according to labour power, it means that he or she is only being paid enough to keep that person working for the company.

While the worker receives the wages for labour power, the owner of the means of production keeps the fruits of that person's labour, the surplus value, as profit. This production cycle oppresses the worker by depriving him or her of hard-earned rewards.

I'll write some more stuff at another time, when I don't need so much sleep (it's 1:30AM in Brisbane at the moment). Goodnight.

[Guest]

quote:

---

The value-added product is sold. The money from those sales goes back into the

hands of the owner. The owner pays the worker a wage that is proportionate to labour power. The owner takes the surplus value as profit.

---

This is indeed the way capitalism works, the owner comes up with the intital money to create a corporation, he then hires workers to create that product, the means of production are the owners, the production itself is done by the workers, and the workers get paid for that labor.

But, and this is the magic of capitalism, if one of the workers decides he can create that product better, he can go out, find investors, open another corporation in direct competition to the one he worked for, and now the worker is the owner, and he and the investors own the means of production, he then goes out, finds workers, thereby creating jobs and the cycle continues. In capitalism the worker can become an owner, in Socialism, he is ALWAYS a worker, there is no upward mobility.

Your main argument is that you say in capitalism, the worker always remains a worker, this is untrue, the worker has the opportunity to take a risk and become an owner himself.

In capitalism, the business must stay competitive, the product must evolve and become better in order to compete in the marketplace, in Socialism, this does not happen, the product does not become better, because there is no competition, so socialism stagnates the community it controls.

Capitalism will leave the Socialist community in the dust. In capitalism, there are small business owners who create products for the larger corporations, who then create a larger product that the community as a whole wants, and are willing to pay for. This in turn creates more jobs and opportunities to become an owner. There is nothing immoral or wrong with this.

quote:

---

What makes this oppressive are the last two sentences. The worker is paid a wage

that is proportionate to labour power instead of labour value, which is wrong because the value of a product is proportionate to the amount of labour that is put into it, thus it is the worker who makes the item profitable in the first place. When the worker is paid according to labour power, it means that he or she is only being paid enough to keep that person working for the company.

---

And so it is with Socialism as well, accept that the worker will always get payed the same wage. In capitalism if a competitor wants that worker, he offers them more to come work for him, in Socialism there is no competition, and therefore the worker stagnates. I have jumped ship more then once because a competitor has offered me more money. This would NEVER happen in Socialism.

Also the owner of the company took a risk by investing his money and creating the corporation that created the jobs, I see nothing wrong with him keeping the profits for that risktaking, without him, there would be no jobs.

quote:

---

While the worker receives the wages for labour power, the owner of the means of

production keeps the fruits of that person's labour, the surplus value, as profit. This

production cycle oppresses the worker by depriving him or her of hard-earned

rewards.

---

There is NOTHING oppressive about this, the owner took the risk, he gets rewarded, the worker is payed well, or else will be taken by the competition, the market grows, and therefore the corporation creates more jobs, and the cycle continues.

In Socialism, competition and renovation are stifled, in capitalism it is rewarded, therefore the capitalist economy is a powerhouse, while the socialist one is a joke.

Sorry, that whole essay stated what capitalism is, and then stated it like it was some immoral thing, it is not immoral.

Capitalism gives everyone the opportunity to be an owner and keep those profits, it makes sure that products continue to evolve and become better, therefore benefitting all of society. It makes cars safer, computers faster, houses more efficient and comfortable, makes stereos and televisions more enjoyable.

Socialism stagnates these products, the products never change because there is no reason for them to change. War is the only reason that a Socialist system would evolve, it has to keep up with the capitalist societies that it is trying to displace, but once the capitalist states had become Socialist, all of the society would stagnate.

This is always true, and always has been,

Socialism: Deadend, stagnant economy, unmotivated workers.

Capitalism: upward mobility, continually evolving products, economy grows, workers are motivated to make life better for themselves, because they can.

This is the difference between Capitalism and Socialism, Socialism is immoral, it stagnates, and then dies, it destroys the community and the worker, because the standard of living ALWAYS remains the same.

LIFE IS BORING!! AND NOT SO GOOD!!

Capitalism on the other hand improves the standard of living of everyone, competition makes the economy grow and prices come down. Workers become owners, and people continue to better themselves for themselves and their families. LIFE IS EXCITING!!! AND IS GOOD!!!!

quote:

---

Hypothesis: The Capitalist production cycle is inherently oppressive to the working

class.

---

Now that we see that the hypothesis that you started with is wrong, your whole argument therefore falls apart.

Capitalism in not inherently oppressive, if it were, there would be no workers nor capitalism, the workers do not HAVE to work for an overly oppressive corporation, they have a choice, whereas in Socialism, they do not!!

[ 05-08-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Guest Apollyon]

I feel the need to ask about a point about which I have been wondering during most of this discussion.

What exactly would happen to artists and writers and "creative" peole like that in a Socialist economy. In capitalism people desire the products of their creativity, or they don't. If they do then they are willing to give up a portion of their wealth in order to aquire those objects. If they don't then the artist must make better things or do something else. In a Socialist economy the government would assign someone to create art. What if people don't like that art. What if someone who doesn't want to be a number cruncher wants to create art, but can't because their job is to do something else. So they do it in their free time. So what? People still won't buy that art because there is no money, no trading of wealth. And where would he get the supplies to create that art with? Would it be a part of his normal government issue? What about people who don't want art supplies for government issue? Give it to them anyway, to appease the few, or give it to no one? What if you give it only to the people who want it? That requires predicting supply and demand, which is impossible to do without either surplus or shortage. What happens when you don't get what you wanted but your neighbor does? That's not fair.

In capitalism, if you don't get what you want, you can work for it. And as Menchise has pointed out so many times, there is always a surplus in Capitalism, and if it's not available, you have the option of making it available for yourself.

I can see at least a few advantages to each system, but overall I think Capitalism is better for everyone.

[aramike]

Menchise: What do you mean by "getting somewhere"? I've been saying the same things all along!

You still haven't challenged those points.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apollyon:

I feel the need to ask about a point about which I have been wondering during most of this discussion.

What exactly would happen to artists and writers and "creative" peole like that in a Socialist economy. In capitalism people desire the products of their creativity, or they don't. If they do then they are willing to give up a portion of their wealth in order to aquire those objects. If they don't then the artist must make better things or do something else. In a Socialist economy the government would assign someone to create art. What if people don't like that art. What if someone who doesn't want to be a number cruncher wants to create art, but can't because their job is to do something else. So they do it in their free time. So what? People still won't buy that art because there is no money, no trading of wealth. And where would he get the supplies to create that art with? Would it be a part of his normal government issue? What about people who don't want art supplies for government issue? Give it to them anyway, to appease the few, or give it to no one? What if you give it only to the people who want it? That requires predicting supply and demand, which is impossible to do without either surplus or shortage. What happens when you don't get what you wanted but your neighbor does? That's not fair.

In capitalism, if you don't get what you want, you can work for it. And as Menchise has pointed out so many times, there is always a surplus in Capitalism, and if it's not available, you have the option of making it available for yourself.

I can see at least a few advantages to each system, but overall I think Capitalism is better for everyone.

---

Good post.

[Menchise]

[Guest Shingen]

geeze, is this like becoming the longest thread ever??

[aramike]

quote:

---

I am conceding to the points that criticize that little system I made up. That system was just my interpretation of a possible Socialist alternative, it was not an exclusive representation of what Socialism is. Now I'm discussing what's wrong with Capitalism so that I may clearly understand the problems with it in order to conceive a better Socialist alternative.

---

Did you just say CONCEED??? *Faints*

Anyway, we all know the problems of capitalism - we deal with them. So, come up with a good socialist argument.

[Guest]

Really, I would love to see a "good" Socialist alternative.

I can't even concieve of such a thing, and neither has anyone else. If you can do it we'll be making history, right here on the 3000AD website. You could change the entire worldview of a generation.

And if you think that's going to happen with any type of socialist program, I got a bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell ya, REAL CHEAP!!!

But I'd still be very fascinated to see you try!!

And yes Shingen, I bet you never even dreamed of what you got started with that one little post!!! lol

[Guest Apollyon]

One comment:

quote:

---

The owner does deserve a share of the profits for taking the risk and creating the jobs, but not at the expense of the worker. It's true that without the owner, there would be no jobs, but without the workers, there would be no profits, so each side is equally important, and thus should be treated equally.

---

I don't mean to be nit-picky but in forum posting you don't have the ability to express yourself as well as you'd like so people assume all sorts of things about what you mean which can be far from reality. But this caught my eye.

quote:

---

...each side is equally important, and thus should be treated equally.

---

Now, if you have a mathematical equation, and you change something... sayyyy wages, on one side, you have to do exactly the same thing on the other. If you add up all the wages of the employees they would be many many times greater the wage of the owner, so in fact the owner is not getting nearly enough compensation as things are now.

(note the sarcasm)