Jump to content

Continuing the debate


Menchise
 Share

Recommended Posts

This thread is a continuation of a debate that originated in the thread called "And so it begins...".

I will start by replying to Jaguar's last post on page 2, and I'm still waiting for $iLk's response to my previous post.

quote:

It has been tried time immemorial, the pilgrims even tried it. They decided that

everyones labor belonged to everyone else and that they would put everything in a central location and people would take what they needed from that. Guess what? They almost starved to death...

In preparation for my response to this argument, I did some brief research on the famine at the Plymouth Colony in the 1620s, and there were definitely other factors involved that undoubtedly contributed to the lack of food. First of all, Plymouth was not suitable for any large scale agriculture because the land wasn't fertile enough. That's why more pilgrims reluctantly started settling on more fertile land to the north in the 1630s. Secondly, the Plymouth colonists were having very limited success in finding native seeds and learning how to grow them, which is why the colonists were dependant on Native American food supplies for so long. Thirdly, Plymouth was in debt to merchants in London, so they needed a method of production that had faster output. In my opinion, the "communistic" model of agricultural production was not abandoned because of famine (there were other causes for that), it was abandoned because Plymouth needed a bigger surplus to help pay off its debts.

quote:

If there is no PERSONAL reward for labor or product manufactured, the system will fail, just as it always has.

I agree, and that's why I'm against capitalism. Capitalist production is based on owners taking away the personal rewards of workers who perform all of the labour and manufacture all of the products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

quote:


I agree, and that's why I'm against capitalism. Capitalist production is based on owners taking away the personal rewards of workers who perform all of the labour and manufacture all of the products.

...and socialist production is based upon everyone reaping equal rewards regardless of how much or how little they actually put into the system, meaning that for anyone to actually reap ANY sort of reward, they must work much harder in order to pick up the slack from those who do not.

Also, in order for socialism to be successful, it must be centralized in control. While, in theory, the people would own everything, they would not actually have control of ANYTHING. That is an attack of freedom itself.

Yes, in capitalism, often times the least deserving gain the most. However, in capitalism, the PEOPLE have control over who to work for. And, in a strong economy, the people have much to gain as businesses are highly competitive in the acquisition of good labor.

And, I have NEVER seen anyone falter and fall into poverty if they truly put themselves into the work.

Socialism would merely keep everyone above the poverty line, simply by LOWERING the poverty line. Capitalism allows some to succeed far beyond their peers.

People are NOT the same. To base an economic system on that assumption is ridiculous. And, as we discussed before (you eventually agreed to this), in order for a socialist system to work, everyone must contribute equally. That just isn't going to happen. Besides, do we REALLY want a society of quintessential drones who are only tools of state production?

As for owners reaping most benefits, that's not quite true. In this economy, most "owners" are also workers who buy into companies. CEOs/Owners do sometimes make a good dime, however, when you're working 20 hour days to keep a company together, you deserve to make a little more than your 9 to 5'ers. And when you're a normal worker investing, you deserve to make some money due to the inherent risk of investing.

On top of that, I'd literally bet you good cash that, in a socialist system which rewards workers based upon production, the SAME people would end up in poverty as they do in capitalism.

Also, if a socialist economy was effective, the middle class would see NO change, except probably quite a bit less for themselves. Socialism is only effective in bringing DOWN those who have good wealth -- not increasing wealth for anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Menchise, I just got to the forum... now lets see;

quote:

Darwinism at its extreme. I'll never accept the idea that only "the fittest" deserve to live. I prefer a system with good intentions over a system with inhumane apathy.

Well that's the inherent fallacy of Socialist thinking, many who believe in the idea truly want to help others, while still others want only to enrich their own power, (i.e. Stalin, Mao, Ho-chi-mign(sp?),Pol-pot)

add a few others to the list, but you get my point.

Anyway those who truly believe it are those suckered in by false promises of a socialist state. It is undeniable that there are those who seek only to better themself rather than help others.

But the key thing is : for people to give to others more freely before you start talking about making them live under a system that forces them to do it anyway. You can't expect me to work for 8 hours a day busting my ass hauling bricks or something, while Mister John Doe sits behind a desk and answers phones for his boss, and get payed the same thing that I would. If the pay was different there would be incentive to move to different jobs and you would soon find a capitalist system again because Employers couldn't keep up with demand.

Frankly you can't expect a good ol boy sitting there saying :"You know what Earl? I have a beautiful wife, loving kids, a great job, a nice vehicle, a beuatiful house, I mean I have everything I need...but I just can't sit here and enjoy it knowing that there is some poor fellow in Afganistan who doesn't have all of this so I'm just gonna give it all up to the state and let them redistribute it and hope I get enough back to be comfortable."

quote:

Hitler and other fascists never had any good intentions either. They recognized raw resentment among the people and used a scapegoat to direct that resentment for their own political ends. Hitler's intention was to become the dictator of Europe. That doesn't sound good to me.

Hitler made Germany rich and powerful again, there was 0% unemployment in Germany (except Jews,Cripples,etc.) So what he did was take a form of Socialism, and twist it so that it would work. As far as what he did to the jews, I read some books about feeling in Germany throughout history about how jews went from slavery, to almost owning everything in Germany. He just tapped into the resentment and used it to further his goals. I think it would have been a good system had it not been genocidal and made room for those who were different to co-exist. The main fallacy of the system was it's "hero-worship" and I agree that Hitler wasn't a good person and that aspect was evil as well.

quote:

Who says we need a state at all?


Karl Marx and his followers are the only Communists who want simply some big great wonderful utopia. The United States is founded upon the ideals that the government is BELOW the people and we are technically allowed to use it however we wish. The "will of the people" is closer to being represented here than in any communist country.

quote:

Sounds good in theory, but it doesn't work well in practice.

Like Communism. Only it works better in practice.

quote:

Just as the market is incapable of sustaining enough jobs, it is also incapable of sustaining enough business opportunity. As I said before, two thirds of people who go into business themselves end up penniless within the year. The problem is not that the owners of these businesses weren't smart enough or worked hard enough. The problem is that no market has or ever will have the sustainable capacity.

I believe the problem is that they are inexperienced with the market and aren't relying upon "walmart" status. They are unknown and people don't know if they know what they are doing. That's why it is stupid to start big and should compete on a level you are able. That way they can build up. Hewlett Packard started in a freaking garage selling one item.

quote:

The welfare system was not a socialist idea

Perhaps but it is what communism is based on.

quote:

I have no doubt that a minority of people may be abusing welfare, but that's not because of human nature (you seem to have ignored my entire rebuttal about human nature in my previous post).

Human nature has been around long before capitalism I'm afraid. Just read any history book and learn why people throughout history have screwed each other over to better themselves. You aren't GUARANTEED to succeed in capitalism, but everyone has an OPPORTUNITY. Something they don't have under a Socialist system because they have already been refined to certain pay.

quote:

You should be making more than that someone, because you're doing all of the hard work.

A communist statement true, agreeable to an extent. But your argument relies on all employers running a slave trade. When you go to work for someone you agree to make a certain amount. If it's not enough, start a competing business. Those who are unwilling or unable usually find comfort at least working a minimum wage job, which frankly if you took money away and redistributed it, they would be in the same position not bettered. The only people you would better in a Communist system is those who can't work or won't work. Everyone else would be pulled from a higher status (roughly 96% of the US population) and forced to the same level. That doesn't create resentment?

quote:

It may be pessimistic and communist, but it's also true, and the factory owner is not being driven by human nature. That factory owner is driven by the pressure of having to compete with other factory owners in order to keep the factory. If the owner can't keep expenses as low as they are in other factories, then the factory's produce will have to be sold at a higher price to cover the costs and maintain the same profit margin as the competition. Less profit = less investment in the future = less production = less revenue in the future = even less profit = a factory owner who's going to be penniless if he/she doesn't sell his/her factory = people without jobs. Need I say more?

Life isn't fair, so why should there be some illusion that it is? Is it fair to stop achievment oriented society? And bring it down to everyone is the same status? What would our world be like now if we hadn't strived to get ahead?

Competition is what drives this world. Communism represses the human spirit. We cannot advance under Communism. Darwinism includes humans too - not just the other living creatures.

It's sad I agree, but true.

Damn it's fun to have these debates

[AFTER EDIT] Good argument Aramike, couldn't have said it better.

[ 10-13-2001: Message edited by: $iLk ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

How then do you explain profit? This, they claim, is a 'reward' to the capitalist for his 'sacrifice' in allowing the means of production (his capital) to be put to use. It is an argument that can hardly convince any worker who gives it a moment's thought.

Take a company that announces a 'net rate of profit' of 10 percent. It is saying that if the cost of all the machinery, factories and so on that it owns is 100 million pounds, then it is left with 10 million pounds profit after paying the wages, raw material costs and the cost of replacing the machinery that wears out in a year.

You don't have to be a genius to see that after ten years the company will have made a total profit of 100 million pounds - the full cost of its original investment.

If it is 'sacrifice' that is being rewarded, then surely after the first ten years all profits should cease. For by then the capitalists have been paid back completely for the money they put in the first place. In fact, however, the capitalist is twice as wealthy as before. He owns his original investment and the accumulated profits.

The workers, in the meantime, have sacrificed most of their life's energy to working eight hours a day, 48 weeks a year, in the factory. Are they twice as well off at the end of that time as at the beginning? You bet your boots they're not.


Oh god, where do I start?

If I as a capitalist, invested 100 million dollars in a company, and at 10% profit, it would take 10 years to pay for my initial investment, so now a marxist would expect me to sell my product at cost?

Karl Marx wasn't a marxist and this silly statement explains why.

I am not going to invest 100 million dollars to break even, that's just PLAIN STUPID!!

If I am going to invest 100 million dollars, I better make at least 300 million over the next 10 years or else get out of whatever business I was in.

If an investor is in it to break even, I call that investor a MORON!!! If I invest wisely, I should expect 3 times my investment over 5 years, let alone 10.

That is a REAL nice dream Menchise, but you continue to forget to add in Human nature, why should I invest in something in order to break even, unless I would get a tax writeoff for it.

WHAT'S IN IT FOR ME? That is the question that MUST be answered, and that is why Capitalism works and Socialism does not..

HUMAN NATURE, ain't it a B#$ch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol @ Jaguar

So true... so true.

Well I have some argument for other parts of your post Menchise, but try and learn the wonders of Capitalism too, you just might like it.

Most Communists i meet fall for the fallacy of thinking everyone would be much better off than they are now and everyone would be able to have everything the same or better than it is in their lives now. There are some stabbing faults and wishful thinking in your ideas, but I envy your idealism and naiveness. You truly think you are going to be helping people and that's why you will fall into line whenever the next Stalin comes along.

quote:

It doesn't matter if one person puts in less than another person as long as both people are doing the best they can.

Alright, first off how in the hell are you going to make them put in their "best effort"? You are rewarding slothfullness. Let's say I was working in a commie factory:

ME: "damn... bob isn't doing half of what I am, and jeez he's getting paid the same thing I am... well hell why should I have to bust my ass when I can simply take it easy and do like bob and take breaks every 5 minutes and drag ass..."

BOB: "damnit, this is hard work... maybe I should do like James and stay on permanent smokebreak and never work, cause he's doing his "best"..."

James: "Damn it, these things are killing me... I may have to put in for workman's comp because I can't breathe so good... I mean after all... I've done my best..."

And before you know it production will grind to a hault because HUMAN NATURE will take over and things like "jealousy" and "contempt" will breed and no one will want to do more than the weakest link.

quote:

Before you start making conclusions about attacks on freedom, you would need to explain why socialism would need to have a central power.

How in the hell is it going to get distributed? I'm sure that everyone will have an equal cut when left to themselves to manage pay.

quote:

I see no reason why the people would not have control over who to work for in a socialist system.

First off you wouldn't need many services that people enjoy today. For starters, movies (why spend millions to make movies?) Computer Games (ditto), they aren't necessary to the people's well being, so why should they be around. In fact the only jobs would be factory jobs for infrastructure, and construction jobs, and agriculture. What else would be necessary in a Worker's world?

BTW how is someone going to be able to take care of themselves after they are too old to work?

quote:

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

God forbid even .00001% of the population fall prey to evil capitalists...

quote:

That is a crazy assumption. I'll explain why, using America as an example. Let's say that the total figure of America's annual business profits was 2 trillion dollars (less than half of the real amount), and America's population is 400 million. If you divided that wealth equally among the population, everyone would be getting 5 million dollars per year

Inflation, shortages, valueless money.

people in Afganistan carry 50,000 afgannies in their pockets. You know how much it's worth? About 50 cents. If you have too much money it's lost it's value. A specific number isn't as important as the utility of money. Say for instance back in the 1920's milk was 5 cents a gallon. Today it is $1 per gallon. If we worked out Economics, you could be paying up to 50,000 for a gallon of milk. Come on Mr. Economics, you;ve got to see your figures are BS when you get down to the bare bones of it. If everyone in the world had 5 million dollars, that wouldn't change supply. In fact, it would create shortages and lead to price increases to prevent widespread famin.

quote:

Obviously, no other country is as wealthy as America

*cough* Capitalism *cough*

quote:

OK, now socialism is not a nationalist ideology

Correct, but some of us are still Nationalist at heart, and Pro-America not pro world. Especially when we see world attitude towards us.

quote:

Let's say that the figure is 6 trillion dollars (that's definitely less than half), and the world's population is 7 billion. If the wealth was divided equally, everyone would be getting over 850 million dollars per year!So, where in hell is the poverty line?


See above, the number has no meaning if the dollar has no value.

quote:

Socialism is based on the exact opposite. It recognizes that people have different levels of ability, and rewards them equally for reaching their individual limits. Capitalism assumes that everyone has the same abilities, so it's their fault if they can't compete. Therefore, capitalism is ridiculous.

Come on man I thought this was going to be hard? So in effect you are saying that Communism reconizes you are better than someone else and refuses to give you anything for it, i.e. no incentive. Capitalism is ridiculous because Employers can fire someone that isn't doing their job or is lazy? Man you are starting to make blanket BS statements we can shoot through easily. I mean I am taking somewhat of a um... overbearing stance on it, but take my comments for the informational value and try and prove it wrong.

quote:

If it is 'sacrifice' that is being rewarded, then surely after the first ten years all profits should cease. For by then the capitalists have been paid back completely for the money they put in the first place. In fact, however, the capitalist is twice as wealthy as before. He owns his original investment and the accumulated profits.

I'm going to go along with Jaguar on that, whoever wrote that is full of $hit. Obviously they have no understanding of how Capitalism works.

Okay, exactly what "communist" would be complaining if THEY were the business owner and made a little bit of extra money?

I mean the guy who wrote that is probably some marxist "professor" at harvard or something and laughs and thinks how silly we are and how right he is when he has no clue how the real world operates... it's sad that people buy into this crap and even sadder to see those devoted to it.

Look, sadly the object of the "pursuit of happiness" is to enjoy life, not to work and pay for someone else to get by, have children so they can repeat after you are dead.

Alright Menchise, obviously you are describing a best case scenario where 100% of the world masturbates to the writings of Marx and their fellow lazy workers appear to be saints and "comrades", but lets say that at worst case scenario, you have a 75% decrease in production because of what I described? How many people would starve then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

If I as a capitalist, invested 100 million dollars in a company, and at 10% profit, it would take 10 years to pay for my initial investment, so now a marxist would expect me to sell my product at cost?

The author was not prescribing anything, he was writing about how capitalism's attempts to justify profit have little foundation.

quote:

I am not going to invest 100 million dollars to break even, that's just PLAIN STUPID!!

Apparently, you didn't read the entire quote very carefully. Here is the paragraph that you missed.

If it is 'sacrifice' that is being rewarded, then surely after the first ten years all profits should cease. For by then the capitalists have been paid back completely for the money they put in the first place. In fact, however, the capitalist is twice as wealthy as before. He owns his original investment and the accumulated profits.

100 million dollar factory + 100 million dollar profit = 200 million dollars. Also, since property is an appreciating asset, the factory itself would be worth more than 100 million dollars after ten years.

quote:

If I am going to invest 100 million dollars, I better make at least 300 million over the next 10 years or else get out of whatever business I was in.

Why would you need 300 million dollars? That's 6000 years of upper-middle class income ($50,000 per year). So unless you're immortal...

quote:

That is a REAL nice dream Menchise, but you continue to forget to add in Human nature

Which part of human nature wants more money than one would ever need to spend in 50 lifetimes?

quote:

HUMAN NATURE, ain't it a B#$ch?

No. It's a lame excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

The author was not prescribing anything, he was writing about how capitalism's attempts to justify profit have little foundation.

That just shows ignorance of the capitalist system, Profit is the reward for having your vision in starting a business come to fruition. Business owners who fail don't get to see profit, by your argument the ones who succeed shouldn't either. It's nothing but jealousy of those who are "better-off"

quote:

100 million dollar factory + 100 million dollar profit = 200 million dollars. Also, since property is an appreciating asset, the factory itself would be worth more than 100 million dollars after ten years.

Alright, as Jaguar said, if I had a hundred million dollars (for the sake of argument) why would I piss it away for 10 years to provide jobs and make absolutely no profit. If you aren't making profit - you sell the equipment to make the money you need. BTW factories get condemned and torn down. The only property that appreciates is the 10,000 or so he spent for the lot of land. Don't take one thing and call it something else. He may still own the factory, but there went 10 years of his life to recoup the initial investment. And during that time he has kept hundreds of people off the streets.

quote:

Why would you need 300 million dollars? That's 6000 years of upper-middle class income ($50,000 per year). So unless you're immortal...

I think the point of the exercise is not to set a dollar amount, but to reach a figure of income where you can stop working and start enjoying life. Once you make enough money so that you can stop working and retire, you can spend time with your family, educate your children, etc. Something that previous generations actually had better than us. We spend so much time working it's pathetic.

quote:

Which part of human nature wants more money than one would ever need to spend in 50 lifetimes?

Don't act snobby about it, I think he means that you expect a return on your investment. You set the 100 million amount.

quote:

No. It's a lame excuse.

You're really serious aren't you?

I think we've addressed it. Human nature is a self evident fact, and that lame excuse is why communism has failed everywhere it was attempted. You can try to cop out by saying that Mao and Stalin just fronted the philosophy to get themselves in power, well they had a whole country of true revolutionaries. Why didn't they come out and tell stalin he was wrong?

Tell me about the dictator of the proletariat.

Socialism is a failed idea. Why not make world happiness and equality your ideology. BTW they aren't the same thing.

Why don't we just figure out how to get rid of that damn human nature, common sense, and theory of economics...

Common sense tells someone that if they can get by without working harder then they will.

You cannot tell us that everyone in the world would fall into line with this wonderful idea.

I wouldn't, I'd take advantage of every loophole and cheat the system any way I could.

Does that mean I would be liquidated?

I mean only 110 million people were killed by their own governments last century. Over 75% of which were communist governments. And why were intellectuals the first to be jailed and executed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Alright, first off how in the hell are you going to make them put in their "best effort"? You are rewarding slothfullness. Let's say I was working in a commie factory:

ME: "damn... bob isn't doing half of what I am, and jeez he's getting paid the same thing I am... well hell why should I have to bust my ass when I can simply take it easy and do like bob and take breaks every 5 minutes and drag ass..."

BOB: "damnit, this is hard work... maybe I should do like James and stay on permanent smokebreak and never work, cause he's doing his "best"..."

James: "Damn it, these things are killing me... I may have to put in for workman's comp because I can't breathe so good... I mean after all... I've done my best..."

And before you know it production will grind to a hault because HUMAN NATURE will take over and things like "jealousy" and "contempt" will breed and no one will want to do more than the weakest link.

That's an exaggerated example of what happens in capitalism when workers are paid very low wages. As Adam Smith once wrote, "when financial rewards are divorced from criteria of performance, neglect of duties is likely to result." It is a fact that when workers are paid a wage that's below a certain amount, they start to neglect their work.

Socialism uses ability as a criteria of performance. If someone can work for 8 hours and works for 8 hours, they get paid the same as someone who is only capable of working for 6 hours and does it. Otherwise the reward is divorced from the criteria of performance, and the participation rate of the workforce decreases. However, if someone is capable of working for 6 hours and only works for 2 hours, they don't get equal pay.

It's not that different from capitalism, except that the wages are higher and the threshold of ability is taken into account. What's wrong with that?

quote:

How in the hell is it going to get distributed? I'm sure that everyone will have an equal cut when left to themselves to manage pay.

I believe embezzlement is a crime. Guess what happens.

quote:

First off you wouldn't need many services that people enjoy today. For starters, movies (why spend millions to make movies?) Computer Games (ditto), they aren't necessary to the people's well being, so why should they be around. In fact the only jobs would be factory jobs for infrastructure, and construction jobs, and agriculture. What else would be necessary in a Worker's world?

Do you honestly believe that workers have no regard for art and recreation? Be realistic.

quote:

BTW how is someone going to be able to take care of themselves after they are too old to work?

Anyone who is not able to work receives equal payment in the form of an innovative and radical system called...a pension!

quote:

So in effect you are saying that

Communism reconizes you are better than someone else and refuses to give you anything for it, i.e. no incentive.

*Nick tries hard not to lose temper*

I hope you're not saying that a person who has no medical conditions and works to his/her ability is superior to someone who's sickly and works to his/her ability. They are equal because they both do the best they can. Socialism treats them equally, capitalism does not.

quote:

Capitalism is ridiculous because Employers can fire someone that isn't doing their job or is lazy?

There is nothing wrong with firing someone who is lazy. Lazy people would get fired in Socialism too.

Capitalism is ridiculous because it imposes an arbitrary standard of ability, and anyone who doesn't meet that standard is regarded as an inferior person. There are two big problems with this: 1) it effectively discourages large groups of people from joining the workforce, and 2) it's inhumane and just plain disrespectful.

quote:

Inflation, shortages, valueless money. Come on Mr. Economics, you;ve got to see your figures are BS when you get down to the bare bones of it. If everyone in the world had 5 million dollars, that wouldn't change supply. In fact, it would create shortages and lead to price increases to prevent widespread famin.

Inflation is caused by a bloated money supply. A bloated money supply occurs when the total face value of the money is greater than the total value of production. Therefore, if everyone in the world had 5 million dollars when enough goods and services were being produced to provide 850 million dollars to each person, you would have a massive DEFLATION rate (prices would drop like flies) because the money supply is too small.

I recommend some revision of monetary policy.

quote:

Alright Menchise, obviously you are describing a best case scenario where 100% of the world masturbates to the writings of Marx and their fellow lazy workers appear to be saints and "comrades", but lets say that at worst case scenario, you have a 75% decrease in production because of what I described? How many people would starve then?

None. Those figures I used to prove that there is enough wealth for absolutely everyone provided for a 50% decrease in production. But, since you want to see the arithmetic of a 75% reduction, I'll give it to you.

Total profit = 3 trillion dollars

Total population = 7 billion people

Distribution of wealth per person = 428 million dollars per year.

Actually, just to make this even more dramatic, I'll provide for a 90% reduction.

Total profit = 1.2 trillion dollars

Total population = 7 billion people

Distribution of wealth per person = 171 million dollars per year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

That is a crazy assumption. I'll explain why, using America as an example. Let's say that the total figure of America's annual business profits was 2 trillion dollars (less than half of the real amount), and America's population is 400 million. If you divided that wealth equally among the population, everyone would be getting 5 million dollars per year ( ).

That math is just a little off. First lets assume that the total business profit in the USA is 6,000,000,000,000 (That is about where it is). If you were to split that money between 400,000,000 people you get 15,000 per person, per year. That means a family of 3 would get 45,000 dollars a year.

To me this is biggest reason that capitalism works and communism does not: The USA is the strongest, most wealthy, and oppertunity filled country in the world and every communist country pails in comparision.

You can debate the systems all you want but just look around the world and see which countries are doing well and which aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

That just shows ignorance of the capitalist system, Profit is the reward for having your vision in starting a business come to fruition.

The author was pointing out a contradiction here. Capitalists talk about the profit as the reward for having a vision of a business coming to fruition, but totally ignores the fact that it was the collective labour of the workers that made that vision come true. It's like riding a horse. You have a vision of where you want to go, but it's the horse that actually takes you there. So, where are the rewards for the workers, eh?

quote:

That math is just a little off. First lets assume that the total business profit in the USA is 6,000,000,000,000 (That is about where it is). If you were to split that money between 400,000,000 people you get 15,000 per person, per year. That means a family of 3 would get 45,000 dollars a year.

Doh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, here's another quote for you guys to dissect, if you can. It's about human nature ("How Marxism Works", 1997, pp. 15-16).

"One very widespread, non-Marxist, materialist view holds that human beings are animals, who behave 'naturally' in certain ways. Just as it is in the nature of wolves to kill or in the nature of sheep to be placid, so it is in the nature of men to be aggressive, domineering, competitive and greedy (and, it is implied, of women to be meek, submissive, deferential and passive).

One formulation of this view is to be found in the best selling book The Naked Ape. The conclusions that are drawn from such arguments are almost invariably reactionary. If men are naturally aggressive, it is said, then there is no point in trying to improve society. Things will always turn out the same. Revolutions will 'always fail'.

But 'human nature' does in fact vary from society to society. For instance, competitiveness, which is taken for granted in our society, hardly existed in many previous societies. When scientists first tried to give Sioux Indians IQ tests, they found that the Indians could not understand why they should not help each other do the answers. The society they lived in stressed cooperation, not competition.

The same with aggressiveness. When Eskimos first met Europeans, they could not make any sense whatsoever of the notion of 'war'. The idea of one group of people trying to wipe out another group of people seemed crazy to them.

In our society it is regarded as 'natural' that parents should love and protect their children. Yet in the Ancient Greek city of Sparta it was regarded as 'natural' to leave infants out in the mountains to see if they could survive the cold.

'Unchanging human nature' theories provide no explanation for the great events in history. The pyramids of Egypt, the splendours of Ancient Greece, the empires of Rome or the Incas, the modern industrial city, are put on the same level as the illiterate peasants who lived in the mud hovels of the Dark Ages. All that matters is the 'naked ape' - not the magnificent civilisations the ape has built. It is irrelevant that some forms of society succeed in feeding the 'apes', while others leave millions to starve to death."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO capitalism works with todays ethics, morality, and "world view of compassion"..It is the best working economic/social system. Socialism is an advanced and lofty idea that perhaps would work in the future; when we as a species have collectively advanced our perceptions and implementations of ethics, morality, and "compassion".. Personally im ready for a more "socialistic world.... but it aint going to happen any time soon...... ~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright Menchise everyone in this thread totally agrees except you.

As I've stated I respect your noble intentions, and truly believe that you think the system would provide for the needy. Truthfully though, you've been lied to. It's almost like the way get rich schemes get alot of people because of the "what if" possibility. So I'm going to take the main points of this thread about Capitalism and against Communism and see if you can justify it then.

Socialism will not work the way you have described. It just won't, and you cannot argue that "if everyone did their part..." You are relying upon a very big if. Might want to take a pessimistic view and realize that statistically it will fail. Just look at the statistics of socialists and capitalists in this thread.

So point #1 is not everyone would do their part, and not everyone cares about their fellow man as much as they do their own family.

quote:

So, where are the rewards for the workers, eh?

Well I assume it was job security for the 10 years, but that's just me. Thank whoever you believe in, God, Allah, the state, whatever that you have the ability to b*tch and moan about the "social injustices" that have been done to you. I'm assuming you are well off, so I guess that it stems from jealousy of those who are "better off". I mean look at your posts, you want everyone to be at an equal level so that they can all be happy? It won't work and wanting to be on the same level means that you want the rich brought down to the level of peasants. Hardly noble. Who will create jobs then? Who will keep the economy functioning?

quote:

That math is just a little off. First lets assume that the total business profit in the USA is 6,000,000,000,000 (That is about where it is). If you were to split that money between 400,000,000 people you get 15,000 per person, per year. That means a family of 3 would get 45,000 dollars a year.

Well that shot to **** your money theory. But let's say that everyone did have millions of dollars, the value of currency is not = to quantity as both I and Aramike stated. Like I said, amount is not = to utility. You can't argue that the money would be worth the same or more, that's just plain ignorance of the capitalist system. And as Aramike dutifully pointed out,

quote:

I suggest that you learn how currency and the value of it works too. That argument of everyone having more money is so flawed in terms of actual wealth, I can't help but to laugh.

And as far as Socialism

quote:

Wrong. How can you base a system upon human "potential"?

Capitalism rewards people for what they put in to the system. In essense, people reward themselves.

Which what would further knock the blow against socialism is as he pointed out that you cannot:

Determine ability

Assess performance

Distribute Wealth

Without a central authority.

In fact, under capitalism it allow some people to reach above the poverty line and just getting by status.

Alright Menchise, for the sake of argument, what would people feel they had gained in life if they are stuck at a poverty level but at least everyone else is too. They aren't inspired to do better because the system discourages it.

Your entire argument puts a best face scenario on every point and quite frankly still doesn't hold water.

Address the main points as to why we are wrong instead of quoting some professor's "theory".

It's all theoretical, but in practice would not work, is wrong, etc.

Use common sense in your argument instead of saying "well Marx said... well professor **** said..."

Common sense, Human nature, and Economics 101 are the factors you can't escape. Use them to defeat us in argument if you can, but you can't.

Don't take me the wrong way menchise, I respect your opinion, wrong though it might be, and you have a right to say it, but geez man you've been brainwashed.

Seriously, use things in actual practice instead of theory. Just because someone says something and it sounds good, doesn't mean you should take it at face value. You are relying upon the fact that people would all think alike and be devoted to each other.

Why do you think Stalin and Mao had to make so many "examples"? It isn't because they were using communism to front their ideas. They were in charge, they knew the theory wouldn't work and was BS.

Use a Thesaurus $ilk

TTFN

[ 10-14-2001: Message edited by: Gallion ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, definitely, let's tone it down a little bit. Menchise has a right to his opinion, but, there is no way that I nor my family could or would live under such a system.

If that system ever came to be in a country that I lived in, I would be moving ASAP. Right out of there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MY bad, got a little carried away there. Okay I bought a couple of books today you might be interested in reading Menchise;

Capitalism and Freedom: by Milton Friedman

The Terrible Truth about Liberals: by Neil Boortz.

I will paraphrase some of it;

From the back of the book:

-------------------------

Liberals operate from a foundation of emotion and feelings.

Conservatives operate from a foundation of logic and facts.

Liberals view people in terms of their membership in groups.

Conservatives view people as individuals

Liberals think government made America

great.

Conservatives think freedom is what made America great.

Liberals think that people are too damn stupid to be free.

Conservatives think that people should be free.

-----------------------------

And as for Milton Friedman, he puts Capitalism in a light "as both a device for achieving economic freedom and a necessary condition for political freedom."

"Friedman applies them to such currently pressing problems as monetary policy, income distribution, welfare, and poverty."

Interesting stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aww, shoot. A political thread.

Now, so long as greed and entropy exist in any form, socialism will not work. Assume the US suddenly becomes socialist:

Assuming there aren't widespread protests, riots, the like, (essentially, no one pays attention to the news), life would seem to go on as usual. Then people discover that they are no longer rewarded for overtime, so they don't show up for it anymore. The airlines find themselves in trouble, because there are not enough pilots to fly the planes. The government reasons that the pilots should be working extra, since they obviously were able to do it under the capitalist system, so they should continue to do so. As an incentive to get back to work, the government has the airlines cut the pilots pay since they are not working as hard as they can. The pilots, unaccustomed to such treatment, strike. Imagine similar occurances in other industries (including the bureaucracy of the government itself). Even the proletariat stop working- they go to their factories or their fields and find no one to work for. The real question now is who can last the longest. The government now has two options: A: Go back to capitalism, or B: Force everyone back to work. It ends there, for if A, socialism obviously ceases to exist, and if B, the same occurs, since public authority is no longer public.

I do admit, however, that in a perfect world populated by perfect people, socialism would naturally come about. Otherwise, without popular support, it could never assert itself. People simply don't possess the omnibenevolence socialism requires to sustain itself. I am of the opinion that a little socialism is a good thing (i.e. welfare). I do not, however, believe that total socialism could work due to the aforementioned reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$ilk:

Ok, as a moderate (perhaps leaning left a bit), I feel compelled to respond to your rant about liberals.

Liberalism is the reform mindset and conservatism is the mindset that resists change. Liberalism is not a certain set of views percieved to be liberal, because in 50 years they might be quite conservative. It is merely the position that we can change for the better. I agree that liberals often go too far (such as the ACLU) and often need conservatives to keep them in check, but progress would stop were it not for them. If there were no liberals, we would all probably be living under the dominion of Rome. No change can come about without liberals, for conservatism ideologically resists change. Again, I believe that we need conservatives to prevent the liberals from going too far, but liberals are an integral part of society.

[ 10-15-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

B: Force everyone back to work. It ends there, for if A, socialism obviously ceases to exist, and if B, the same occurs, since public authority is no longer public.


In the case of the B: this is what the 2nd amendment is for, and another reason that Socialism in any form will be doomed from the start. I have stated many times before and I will state it again, gun grabbers=Socialists, every gun grabber, as I call them and many others do as well, cannot bring about thier socialist dreams until they disarm the populace.

As far as the welfare thing, I hated welfare as it was before, no time limits, women having babies in order to get the free ride it entailed, and of course telling the father to go get a life somewhere else.

I have experienced that by the way. My friend went out with a girl from Nova Scotia, she got pregnant. She just quit taking the pill without telling my friend. When he discovered that she was pregnant, he asked her to marry him. She told him that he was nuts if she was going to marry him when she could make more money on welfare and not have to work at all. Then she took him to court for $1000.00 a month child support, which for welfare at that time didn't count towards her income.

So, until they changed the system I was supporting this ..... and she still took my friend to the cleaners for $1000.00 a month.

Time limit, YES, Amount limit, YES, and that is as far as I will go with it. A person must be motivated to get a job, and by paying them less on welfare then they would make at a 9-5 minimum wage job, we give them that motivation.

Thank god that system was changed, and guess what? She works now!! What a concept, she can't wait until she can move back to Nova Scotia, so she can get another free ride, but she will have to wait until the kid is 18, I think it's wonderful.

That's as far into socialism as I will go, and I believe private organizations would do a better job at it anyway, when 80 cents out of every dollar for welfare goes to the bureaucracy, you know there is something broken.

Capitalism works, and works every time it's tried, my state is saving money up the ying yang right now on prisons, they privatized them, and the companies that own the prisons use the prisoners as cheap labor to create goods, they make minimum wage, learn a trade, and when they get out 9 out of 10 will never go back to prison. It is still experimental, but it is working like a champ.

The only thing the government does well is the military, this is the ONLY thing in my opinion that the federal government should do. If congress only had to meet for 3 weeks out of the year because they had nothing to do, I would be ONE HAPPY CAMPER!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a brief reply for now.

I saw Friedman's book last year, read a few pages, raised a few eyebrows, didn't read it again.

His arguments (at least the ones that I read) sound interesting, even convincing if they're not given a serious moment's thought.

In one chapter he wrote that anti-discrimination laws are bad for the economy because if a businessman started hiring minorities in a racist community the business would fail. Sounds logical in that particular context, but when you look at the big picture it is deeply flawed because discrimination effectively discourages minorities from working at all, thus the participation rate of the workforce decreases (ie fewer people enter the 'labour market'). The fact that none of the minorities in that community are working also reinforces the racism in that community.

Friedman's theories show a bias toward the status quo, thus any change, even positive change, is discouraged.

quote:

Use common sense in your argument instead of saying "well Marx said... well professor **** said..."

There is nothing wrong with quoting other sources. If you don't like it, then stop telling me about Boortz and Friedman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...