Jump to content

Socialism Vs Capitalism (round one)


Lotharr
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:

look at the demographics and you can’t fail to realize that success is always at the expense of others.

The classic example: why did buggy whip manufactures go out of business?

Are we supposed to prop up the buggy whip industry because the people would be out of jobs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 306
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

quote:

A worker is NOT forced to stay at a job, the manager doesn't sit there with a gun and say, "you have to work, and you have to work for this much" The market decides the value of a person's labor, if a company pays more, then that worker will leave his low paying company for the higher paying one, this in turn drives up the labor at other companies as they try to retain thier employees. That is the way capitalism works.

That is IF you have a good diploma. If you don't have good academic training, there's a VERY good chance that, if fired / quitting, you will get a job that pays less. Capitalism is not a good thing when you are at the bottom of the ladder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Are we supposed to prop up the buggy whip industry because the people would be out of jobs?

What a ghastly idea, that is the most preposterous thing I have ever heard. Read my posts again, in fact read them a few more times. If you still donÔÇÖt get what I mean, then read them until you get it (at this point your pretty much hopeless and should be put on life support before your cerebellum fails along with the rest of your brain).

quote:

A worker is NOT forced to stay at a job, the manager doesn't sit there with a gun and say, "you have to work, and you have to work for this much" The market decides the value of a person's labor, if a company pays more, then that worker will leave his low paying company for the higher paying one, this in turn drives up the labor at other companies as they try to retain thier employees. That is the way capitalism works.

Nothing unfair or wrong with it, you are paid what the market thinks your labor is worth, nothing more, nothing less.


That is another way of looking at it. If you consider labor in the same light that you consider a product, it simply becomes a resource, which is bought and sold via the laws of supply and demand (and believe it or not, unions are not completely independent of this). This actually makes more sense, but it doesnÔÇÖt fully negate the abuse of power argument. Because those in charge of a company are in power, they can use this power to gather more power (the whole rich getting richer thing).

So what am I saying? Well, I do support capitalism in the fullest, and I do agree with Jag about welfare, but what I am arguing here is that exploitation is inherent in capitalism. However, because it is possible for someone to move up (or move down, for that matter) based on (among other things) intelligence and skill, the system is fair. It would be contrary to human nature to expect those with power to forgo using it for personal gain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

What a ghastly idea, that is the most preposterous thing I have ever heard. Read my posts again, in fact read them a few more times. If you still donÔÇÖt get what I mean, then read them until you get it (at this point your pretty much hopeless and should be put on life support before your cerebellum fails along with the rest of your brain).

Now that just was not nice and not in the spirit of BC board discussions. We do get heated but we try to stay nice. You should rephrase or apologize to Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

In most companies the upper management gets paid much more then the work they do is actually worth. This money doesn’t come out of thin air, rather it comes from those at the bottom (the laborers) who are in fact being paid less then their labor is worth.

The money comes out of the pockets of the shareholders in the form of reduced or flat dividends.

quote:

That is the way it works in the US, unless you work for the government or a union of course. then you are paid arbitrarily based on what the government or union thinks you should be payed

And when the government pays, it pays with your money.

quote:

I think it's called overhead. To extract the raw material costs more than it is inherently worth. Thus you can't just add labor + raw material = worth. It's more like you said. labor + cost of raw material + cost of equipment + cost of sales + cost of warehouse + cost of distributing + cost of electricity = worth + profits = total cost to consumer.

That's just the cost of goods sold. The "worth" is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe the buttons make the dress. Look at high fashion. How do the Parisian designers get away with charging $10,000 dollars for a dress made from a few hundred dollars of material?

quote:

What a ghastly idea, that is the most preposterous thing I have ever heard.

Ponder it some more.

Times change. Innovation hurts. Walmart put the mom and pop corner store out of business. Japanese autos almost put Detroit out of business. Microsoft has put many competitors out of business. Email may still put the post office out of business. History is full of examples of dominant businesses driven away because of changes in technology. We don't use buggy whips anymore. What happened to Mom and Pop, the Detroit auto workers, steel workers, letter carriers?

People either retool or they get left behind. In the end, they are in the position that they're in due to decisions they made throughout their lives. It's brutal, but that's the way it is.

quote:

Now that just was not nice

Dragon Lady hasn't been here long enough to realize that the quoted statement hurts her more than it does me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Do you assume that this 5 percent is the same group of people over and over, or is it a revolving five percent that comes and goes as people retrain and acquire new jobs?

While there is definitely a high number of long term unemployed, I'm not sure how much of that group consists of that 5 percent. Note that 5 is the absolute minimum figure for a Laissez Faire economy; it's usually 6-8 percent during booms, and it's extremely rare for it to get any lower. Most of the short term unemployed would come from the recessions, when the figure increases (usually 8-12 percent in the top industrialized nations).

quote:

If someone is unable to get work, then there should be a safety net for them, and there is, it is called PRIVATE charity.

Read this.

quote:

It's all about freedom people, that is the BOTTOM line, and as long as the government can take my money and give it to others, then I am NOT FREE.

It's also about those unalienable rights that you mentioned (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), which apply to all citizens, including those in poverty. Since it is the government's responsibility to ensure that those rights are not alienated from any citizen, it is required to assist when private charity proves inadequate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Exploitation Of The Proletariat And The Decline Of Capitalism

Marxism may not have currently produced a successful alternative to capitalism, but its groundbreaking criticism of the capitalist system still stands as Marx's great work.

Here are some relevant excerpts from the Glossary of the Marxists Internet Archive:

Commodity

Capital

Labour Power

Wage Labour

Value

Surplus Value

Capitalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Menchise,

I don't read intelligentsia propaganda, I am a capitalist, and will always be a capitalist.

Sure it is unfair to some, but it is VERY good to a vast majority. I don't think that I should be punished for the actions of a minority, and a very small minority at that.

Marxism and Socialism are both FAILED experiments, they DON'T WORK. No matter how much you try and convince me otherwise. History repeats itself because no one listened the first time. History show that socialism and Marxism fail and destroy those that they are trying to LIFT up. You're NOT listening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I don't read intelligentsia propaganda, I am a capitalist, and will always be a capitalist.

Does that mean that you only read capitalist propaganda?

quote:

Marxism and Socialism are both FAILED experiments, they DON'T WORK. No matter how much you try and convince me otherwise. History repeats itself because no one listened the first time. History show that socialism and Marxism fail and destroy those that they are trying to LIFT up. You're NOT listening.

The history that you know of shows only the failures. I suggest you research the Paris Commune of 1871. It was a working experiment before the exiled French Army invaded and massacred 30,000 workers, many of which defended the city for five days despite being outnumbered 4 to 1.

[ 05-15-2002, 12:04: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capitalist propaganda? Pardon me?

Capitalism works, see the united states, it works and works well. There are striking examples of success with capitalism all over the world. Capitalism does not need propaganda because it has been proven. Marxism and socialism on the other hand have always failed and therefore need propaganda to make it seem like a "fair" thing to do. That's all they have, PROPAGANDA!!

Capitalism on the other hand has a VERY strong history of success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

It's also about those unalienable rights that you mentioned (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), which apply to all citizens, including those in poverty. Since it is the government's responsibility to ensure that those rights are not alienated from any citizen, it is required to assist when private charity proves inadequate.

Right to life - granted.

Right to libery - also granted.

Right to the pursuit of happines, not happiness itself, is granted. People will make of that pursuit what they will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

People either retool or they get left behind. In the end, they are in the position that they're in due to decisions they made throughout their lives. It's brutal, but that's the way it is.

Like I said, read my posts. All of them. You will find that, while I made no mention of businesses left behind, I did specifically say that having the claw your way over people is an important part of capitalism.

My apologies if I offended you, but I get irritated by people who completely miss what I am trying to say, and then suggest that my arguments support some preposterous idea such as propping up the buggy whip industry.

quote:

While there is definitely a high number of long term unemployed, I'm not sure how much of that group consists of that 5 percent. Note that 5 is the absolute minimum figure for a Laissez Faire economy; it's usually 6-8 percent during booms, and it's extremely rare for it to get any lower. Most of the short term unemployed would come from the recessions, when the figure increases (usually 8-12 percent in the top industrialized nations).

I'm not worried about those people who are temporarily unemployed. If they usually have a job then they SHOULD have some money saved against just this sort of thing, if they donÔÇÖt, they deserve what they get. Furthermore, IÔÇÖm not worried about people who are sometimes employed and sometimes not, if they have what it takes to succeed then they will, if they donÔÇÖt then thatÔÇÖs too bad for them. And finally I donÔÇÖt CARE about people who are unemployed for an extended period. They either donÔÇÖt have what it takes or else they are simply mooching off of welfare and could get a job if they really wanted to, but prefer to spend MY money.

Furthermore, if charities didnÔÇÖt give money (or food, or whatever) to completely hopeless individuals then there wouldnÔÇÖt be nearly so much of a shortage. If someone repeatedly shows that they are totally incapable of surviving without charity or government intervention then they have no business surviving. This gets back to Darwinism and the survival of the fittest.

quote:

Right to the pursuit of happines, not happiness itself, is granted. People will make of that pursuit what they will.

I would like to add to this and point out that though people have the right to pursue happiness, they donÔÇÖt always do so. We have neither the responsibility to force someone to act in there own best interest, nor any business doing so. If someone isnÔÇÖt willing to out put the effort necessary for success (and presumably happiness) then that is their problem. Period. End of story.

P.S. Even the truly incapable are not without hope, they could always win a Darwin Award

[ 05-15-2002, 14:13: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest $iLk

quote:

While there is definitely a high number of long term unemployed, I'm not sure how much of that group consists of that 5 percent. Note that 5 is the absolute minimum figure for a Laissez Faire economy; it's usually 6-8 percent during booms, and it's extremely rare for it to get any lower. Most of the short term unemployed would come from the recessions, when the figure increases (usually 8-12 percent in the top industrialized nations).

In the United States, people who are insanely rich and don't need to work are listed as "in poverty" simply because their income has stopped. However much they are worth doesn't matter, poverty is measured by income, and for many - that income is no longer needed.

For those unemployed, the only encouragement that can be offered is to try harder to sell themselves by learning more job skills, making themselves worth more.

It isn't the markets fault if someone walks up with no skills and expects $30,000 a year and doesn't get the job.

If someone works their butt off in college, then they deserve to make more than those who don't.

Simple, effective, and totally defeats the idea that people who are poor are simply "unlucky" or "screwed over" and those that are rich are simply "lucky" "won life's lottery" or "exploit others". God forbid that people are where they are by choice and not some random factor called exploitation.

You have to earn your way through life, it builds character, and it's the only way to be truly successful.

If I were to give you, Menchise the first place trophy for American football - would it make your proud? After all you've done nothing to earn it.

How different would the person that busted their butt at football practice, and winning games feel when they got it?

Earning is better for people as a whole, the harder they have to work to climb up the social ladder, the more responsible and knowledgeable they will be when they get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

In the United States, people who are insanely rich and don't need to work are listed as "in poverty" simply because their income has stopped.

Unless their income is entirely sheltered somewhere, they would still list interest earned as income. If they are insanely rich, their interest income should be enough to put them above the poverty level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Like I said, read my posts. All of them. You will find that, while I made no mention of businesses left behind, I did specifically say that having the claw your way over people is an important part of capitalism.

My apologies if I offended you, but I get irritated by people who completely miss what I am trying to say, and then suggest that my arguments support some preposterous idea such as propping up the buggy whip industry.

I wasn't offended -- I've been here a very long time. I'm surprised that you didn't take the time to get to know everyone a little better before making personal attacks like that.

Don't always expect a point-by-point response to statements you make. I don't. Sometimes, we "spin" them a little to make our own points. I quoted a brief snippet from one of your points and made an equally brief statement of my own. If I were attacking your position whole-heartedly I would have quoted it at length with sufficiently lengthy responses.

This is a unique site for gamers. Because the BC franchise is a niche-market game due to its complexity and steep learning curve, it attracts people who are deep thinkers and like a challenge. We informally evolved (devolved?) into a "debating society" because we were bored during the in-between times between BC3K patches/enhancements and wanted something to do so we wouldn't lose contact with other fans of the game. Over time, we attracted many diverse points of view but we knew that we always had one common interest that binds us -- the Battlecruiser series of games.

Let's just shake hands and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Capitalist propaganda? Pardon me?

Capitalism works, see the united states, it works and works well. There are striking examples of success with capitalism all over the world. Capitalism does not need propaganda because it has been proven.

There is no example of a capitalist country (not even the USA) that 'lifts all boats' as you claim, thus the boat argument is unfounded propaganda. Whenever I provide unavoidable examples of that fact, you try to explain them away by saying that those boats that aren't lifted are down by choice or laziness. What evidence do you provide in support of that claim? None. Zero. Null. Void. Even when I started quoting economic figures and facts indicating the unsustainability of full employment in capitalism (regardless of motivation, talent, or skill), particularly the fact that it has NEVER been remotely close to happening in a Laissez Faire economy, you still throw the same lame propaganda in my face, much of which was written in some form or other by pro-capitalist intelligensia.

If capitalism is supposed to lift all boats, or even all talented, skilled, and hard-working boats, it has failed miserably every single time. Therefore, all it has is propaganda and a lot of big sticks.

quote:

Marxism and socialism on the other hand have always failed and therefore need propaganda to make it seem like a "fair" thing to do. That's all they have, PROPAGANDA!!

I have already provided one example of a socialist system that was so popular among ordinary workers that they were willing to defend it with their lives against an overwhelming military force; a force that took five days of bloody fighting to take control of one city that had little or no military of its own, and the first thing it did with that control was massacre the civilians at random. This is historical fact, not propaganda!

quote:

Right to the pursuit of happines, not happiness itself, is granted. People will make of that pursuit what they will.

I believe that is what I wrote.

quote:

At the risk of being shot as a traitor...heh heh....I think it would be of interest to consider what the USSR might have been if a crazy mo' frappy named Stalin hadn't taken power....but who knows...

The USSR was in trouble long before Stalin seized power. The whole system that Lenin developed was a disaster waiting to happen. Sure, without Stalin there wouldn't have been such brutality, but Leninism was never going to solve class division. Lenin contradicted Marx by attempting to install a socialist economy in a country that had never known capitalism (Russia was feudal at the time). The one party state didn't help either.

quote:

In the United States, people who are insanely rich and don't need to work are listed as "in poverty" simply because their income has stopped.

Note that I used the term Absolute Poverty.

quote:

For those unemployed, the only encouragement that can be offered is to try harder to sell themselves by learning more job skills, making themselves worth more.

The point is that regardless of skill, talent, or character, 6-8 percent of the workforce is constantly unemployed. That means that even if everyone worked their butt off in college, 6-8 percent still wouldn't get a job, even when the economy is in a boom.

quote:

If I were to give you, Menchise the first place trophy for American football - would it make your proud? After all you've done nothing to earn it.

LOL! If you think that's what socialism is like, then you need to wake up now.

quote:

Furthermore, if charities didnÔÇÖt give money (or food, or whatever) to completely hopeless individuals then there wouldnÔÇÖt be nearly so much of a shortage. If someone repeatedly shows that they are totally incapable of surviving without charity or government intervention then they have no business surviving. This gets back to Darwinism and the survival of the fittest.

It's easy to preach 'survival of the fittest' when you're one of the fittest. It is one of the most hypocritical arguments I have ever read, especially when it's written by Americans. Remember the unalienable right to life that is guaranteed to ALL citizens? That includes the not-so-fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well since this debate is about Capitalism v Socialism, name ONE Socialist country that existed for 100 years or more?

obviously when i think capitalist,i think America.

i don't want to hear or SEE the phrase "Americaninskies" even though none of you have said it..

it's my making my head spin.....

IMO, in a capitalist country, the person makes the decision if they want to succeed or not. the difference is if that company they chose can last AND if they work hard enough they can succeed.

maybe i'm making sense? maybe not?

INSERT "KICK ME!" [here]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest $iLk

Perhaps we are looking at this all wrong. Let Darwinism take control, the high achievers for survival survive, and those that don't bother to work starve.

I'm kidding of course, America has *some* socialized programs that I can agree with the concept of if not the practice. Welfare is abused by too many people. The entire system needs reform. People should only draw benefits for a set period that is reasonable, and only between jobs.

There are very few people in this country who can do NO work. The system needs to quit being over-regulated, yet at the same time ensure that maximum employment is reached.

Menchise, your anger at Capitalist society I believe is unjustified. Not one person in America has been denied any help that would guarantee their survival.

If someone is flat broke, and can't afford a doctor, they are NEVER turned away if it is a life threatening emergency.

No one here starves to death, except by choice - some of which I can understand that it's a moral choice not to accept help.

There is no injustice, you see only unfairness because not everyone can buy the most expensive things.

If they wanted expensive things that bad enough, they would get off their butts, and go earn it.

Survival is guaranteed as far as government help goes. That's all they can expect to be handed to them.

Any of the "niceties" that you moan about rich people having are within their reach if they try.

If they try for a year and give up, too bad.

It may take a while longer, maybe 30 years of working dead end jobs to reach an opportunity, but when that opportunity knocks they can sieze it.

No one said they would ever reach it. But you can't tell me that people are mistreated in a Capitalist society, in any way other than imagined mistreatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I have already provided one example of a socialist system that was so popular among ordinary workers that they were willing to defend it with their lives against an overwhelming military force; a force that took five days of bloody fighting to take control of one city that had little or no military of its own, and the first thing it did with that control was massacre the civilians at random. This is historical fact, not propaganda!

One very localized instance. Your example is of a very small socialist system that, however successful, was not around long enough to prove its viability before it was conquered. Furthermore, a system that will work in a relatively small area may not be so successful on a larger scale. Observe, for example, true democracy. It worked in Athens, it worked in a number of early New England towns, but a large-scale democracy is simply not feasible.

quote:

The point is that regardless of skill, talent, or character, 6-8 percent of the workforce is constantly unemployed. That means that even if everyone worked their butt off in college, 6-8 percent still wouldn't get a job, even when the economy is in a boom.

Oh really? That is quite a leap of logic, to figure that employment statistics based on a world in which a number of people are lazy and donÔÇÖt work because welfare supports them (at lest for a time) is viable in a hypothetical scenario in which everyone works hard. There will be just as many slackers and incompetents in a socialist society as in a capitalist one, more really because people wouldnÔÇÖt have as much reason to work (I believe the term welfare state describes this quite nicely). This is called human nature, and unless someone knows a way of having a socialist society that doesnÔÇÖt breed laziness and apathy then what are we arguing about? Whether or not a practical economic system is morally superior to a hypothetical one?

quote:

It's easy to preach 'survival of the fittest' when you're one of the fittest. It is one of the most hypocritical arguments I have ever read, especially when it's written by Americans. Remember the unalienable right to life that is guaranteed to ALL citizens? That includes the not-so-fit.

EveryoneÔÇÖs a hypocrite, those who attack hypocrisy more so then most. But this isnÔÇÖt a case of hypocrisy, at least not on my part. I make no claim to high ideals, I donÔÇÖt preach about unalienable rights, and I DO live in a capitalist society.

As far as an unalienable right to life, so what? That may have been a bit of ideology someone wrote down, but you will find our constitution is phrased a little differently. The actual wording of the constitution states (in the 5th amendment) that No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law not exactly an unalienable right to life. Furthermore, denying someone a gift is hardly the same as depriving them of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You sell the human race short. We are here now and live in a system that works by sacrificing a portion of it's population and drawing in the less fortunate and exploiting them.

There are people who will never have a shot at the expensive items or life style of the same because all around them is a way of life and environment that tells them that they have reached the end of their potential. The best they can hope for is to slave away and pray their kids can have a better life then they do. And these are your fellow citizens. However.by previous posts I can some out there could care less about what that means.

It is sad that you ignore this truth of this American reality....or accept it and choose to write those people off. Your system needs an underclass bottom line. And for the time being you have a large crowd to draw upon. Poor people from other counties meet this requirement and work jobs for pay and in conditions other Americans would never dream of. You may think itÔÇÖs ok but I do not.

And I am sick of hearing about twisted Darwinist views on the way that society should work. Because in that case Dragon Lady you can shut your mouth and get back in kitchen..I would prefer to have you here discussing points and ideas but we can just let Darwin take care of that. (no offense intended, and if I singled you out by gender and that makes you feel uncomfortable let me know and I wont do it again)

THE PREAMBLE

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is the heart of the Constitution the rest is a plan for the people to make the rules to realize this end.

and oh my.... IT SAYS GENERAL WELFARE!!! WERE THE FOUNDING FATHERS SOCIALISTS AT HEART!?!

There is no mention of a ruling elite using a mob to their own ends. The mob is what keeps the higher end of society in power and comfortable and what will one day bring them down.sorry but that is moral side of human survival of the fittest.believe itpeople are looking for ways to be as moral as possible (well most) and it causes them to do all kinds of horrible things to each other.. amazing eh?

So if anyone out their wants to be a true American why donÔÇÖt you get with the program.

[ 05-16-2002, 21:26: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion...

I HAVE noticed a trend through this topic which I must say is rather disturbing to me.

The United States seems to be getting painted as the poster child for capitalism here.

I would like to point out that, like any sturdy structure, a tree must bend in the wind or it breaks... this idea was familiar to the founders of this country and has not been forgotten. The US is NOT a capitalist society. Capitalism is an idea as is Socialism. Both are quite visible in the US. No Society could survive for long using only one set of Ideals. The U.S. , because of of its form of government is particularly adept at "bending in the wind"

In short, what I am saying is that a Capitalism VS Socialism discussion seems a bit odd to me... its like a tall vs intelligient discussion.

IMHO , the discussion should be, "What can be accomplished by blending Multiple Ideals together"

[ 05-16-2002, 23:47: Message edited by: James Micron ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lotharr,

FYI, the preamble is not actually part of the constitution, it is, "a Preamble".

It sets the goals of the document, it tells you what the following document is supposed to do, it is NOT a part of the document itself.

Just as a master thesis or anything else will tell you what it intends to prove, it is NOT PART of the document, it just tells you what it's goals are.

Just FYI, the General welfare clause has been perverted by liberals and yes, socialists to mean just what you think it means, when in fact that is not what it means at all.

It states goals, nothing more.

and this stuff about the bottom % of the population living like they do forever is one of the greatest falsehoods that has been put out.

I started out at 1.85 an hour, then I got another job at 2.85 an hour and I continued to move up. I won't tell you what I make now, because it would piss you off. The fact is that people in the lower part of the economy do not stay there, they are mobile they move up and others move into their place. NO ONE stays that way forever in our economy, and that is a fact you can take to the bank.

A poor person now, 99% of the time will not be poor 5 years from now, unless they choose to be there.

Sorry, the whole argument falls apart when looked at with the true facts in sight.

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...