Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

Debate as much as you like but not in the narrow confines of your selection..you could answer my post but is that not on your agenda?

I show examples of capitalist failures, its abuses,its excesses, its double standards and its exploitation.What do i hear? oh thats not capitalism, America has been spoiled by socialist ideas..What is good example of capitalism then, i ask..Oh America one replies..the other says well maybe not but it used to be..

I give a good example of Socialism but its not allowed they have resources.So we need a country with no resources and a short period of time to value its worth.

Australia that has socialist governments and a socialist agenda is then given as a model of capitalism, Hong kong another ruled by the british..ah but the british have socialist governments...

How many times do i have to tell you right wing capitalists... moderate democratic socialism is not communism...

Capitalism is not the only path to a free trade economy and the ability of the individual is not hampered by socialist government.Wealth is not a dirty word for socialists.

the exploitation of labour

the lobbying of government by those with money

I really wonder how the other side views all these these debates. I happen to agree with BrightNoon on this thing. If I didn't, I could argue with some of the facts, but ultimately I would have to give in (or reduce the whole debate to epistemology and declare everything unknowable, which is an option in every debate). I wish I could be in the head of someone who firmly holds an inconsistent view. They are probably as intelligent as me. But how does that work?

Have you bought that bike yet?I have explained my objections to you calling socialism communism on several occasions and the reasons why.If you don't get it now you never will.Wickie modern socialism and read it before returning.Communism was a reaction to exploitation just like the french revolution, we now moderate our views to fit the situation.

What you mention are attributes, we can't create a system where the government is limited by a rule that says it "may not be exploitative".
And progressive taxing fits that description, which you are for, so you must be in favor of some exploitation. That's pretty much the definition of socialism, it exploits some for the benefit of others. I ask you which exploitation is ok, where does the line go?
I am asking you what the keeps socialism from being a slippery slope towards communism. Where does it stop. I don't want to wiki it, I want to her it from you. If you use arguments, that are not generally agreed upon, you must back them up.

You talk about inconsistent views.. at one time you told me you was more socialist than me, you change your mind depending on who of your friends is speaking.

America is, then its not a capitalist country.

You give a communist country as an example of the ideal capitalism state,

i think you need a reality check, amigo.

In practice however the socialist system never manages to establish this "paradise" because management for the benefit of the employees leads to featherbedding and lack of investment or economic growth, at the expense of consumers. Collective farming (operating farms like factories) sharply reduced the food supply. The most thoroughgoing efforts by Communist regimes turned into authoritarian dictatorships. The government controls all investments, production, distribution, income, and prices, as well as all organizations, schools, news media and formerly private societies. Churches and labor unions are suppressed or controlled by the government.

Actually, I don't get that. I looked up 'time preference' and I get the principle, but not what it means in this context.

A principle characteristic of capitalism is the separation of laborer from capital. This is explained by the concept of time preference. Briefly, the worker forgoes the risk and waiting associated with the future earnings of capital for the discounted present earnings of simply laboring with another's capital.

There are natural resources, there are consumer end goods, and then there are capital goods. While consumer goods cause immediate satisfaction, capital goods are those goods that do not serve immediate satisfaction, rather facilitate future satisfaction. As such, they are representative of the time passage required for certain production processes and the delayed satisfaction.

It is perfectly natural for someone to eschew the time preference costs of capital goods for immediate consumer goods. This is an explanation of why free men may simply perform "wage labor", and why owners of capital may profit from the exchange.

The wage laborer accepts immediate satisfaction by the way of wages that purchase consumer goods, while the owner of capital forgoes immediate satisfaction by investing in capital.

An understanding of time preference should explain why the laborer is subject to discounted income and the capitalist is entitled to profit.

Ultimately, socialism is a reaction to the excesses of capitalism to return to the laborer the full fruits of his labor. This is the utmost in economic justice, and anything less than this optimal is slavery.

Democratic Underground - Moderate capitalistic socialism is the best economic policy - Democratic Underground read this and understand..

Yes. I see.
It means that the worker does not own what he works on, so he will be paid less than the value he creates.

First, we cannot talk as if this is an ironclad rule that follows in specifics. These are tendencies within markets, not rules for interactions. Sometimes people will receive less than others or more than others for comparable work; there will be bad and good luck. Variation is a cost and reward of freedom.

Now, with that said, it is an economic mistake to speak as if the laborer creates value. You follow a prestigious line in thinking this, as the idea was formulated with economists David Ricardo and Adam Smith. This line of thinking is called the Labor Theory of Value, where the value of a good is the equivalent to the labor invested in bringing it to its consumable state. It was not until Karl Marx appropriated the theory to explain how exploitation exists and can be measured did economists begin to question it. Beginning with economists Stanley Jevons and Carl Menger, economists began to accept the marginalist subjective theory of value, where value becomes a psychological aspect of the consumer. The product only gains value as the consumer perceives it as both scarce and useful.

So no, the worker does not receive compensation less than the value he creates, simply because, while it can be said that consumer goods cannot be brought to market without the labor, there is no necessary connection between the value of a good and the labor applied (this last part was largely a quote of Menger).

Now, to reword it into a manner that is true and likely pretty consistent what you were getting at, the laborers involved in bringing some good to market in which capital goods were employed in the process will receive less than full compensation for the value of the product. Put simply: When capital and labor are combined to complete some product, the owner of capital will receive some profit despite adding no labor.

Now from there you seem to question my ability to mesh that with other statements I have made in this thread.

Noon ,you are not listening,lobbying is a result of capitalism it requires that you use your power to unfairly influence the governments.Its not socialist idea,never was never will be.

Exploitation of labour is not a valid complaint about capitalism?Do you understand that since the industrial revolution initiated in the uk and the founder of a capitalist ideology we have seen nothing but exploitation.The socialists came into being as an answer to the uncontrolled exploitation of labour in this free for all capitalist jungle.Just come and look at our wonderful victorian houses that where built on child labour and exploited workers.Dark satanic mills.Children down mines, working from dawn to dusk in sweat shops.Now we have created labour laws fought against by the capitalist elite who saw their profits threatened.

We now see this ideology exported to countries where the workers have no such protection and you say its fair because they dont have to work in these sweat shops, your views are in my opinion blinkered by your cushioned life style.

I am a revolutionary, i will carry the red flag with honour and pride and when i see the third world workers treated with the same contempt my blood runs with anger.

I am a revolutionary, i will carry the red flag with honour and pride and when i see the third world workers treated with the same contempt my blood runs with anger.

I apologize for the term, I mean no offense, but you are a useful idiot.
They will be the first ones to be removed to forced labor camps after the revolution for they know to much and they are expected to rebel when they see that their beautiful communist state brought them oppression.

Terms like that from you are acceptable because i don't expect anything less from a mindless nerd such as you.If it was from someones opinion i respected it might give me some problem but from you its a badge of honour.Now don't get me wrong..

Terms like that from you are acceptable because i don't expect anything less from a mindless nerd such as you.If it was from someones opinion i respected it might give me some problem but from you its a badge of honour.Now don't get me wrong..