Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

I get it. You're a idealist. I'm not saying you're a communist, you made quite clear that you're not. But that's what communists always say. We should all work for the common good instead of our own good.
It's just not going to happen.

How about western civilization after world war 2? The greatest prosperity and freedom for the most people in the history of humanity.
And you pointed out one bad example. The fact is that the example of Norway can't be copied to other nations. Norway has a population of 4.8 million, they're all white and have a bunch of natural resources.

Prosperity after ww2 :perplexed:?you where not living in my country comrade or you would not make that claim.So where as my country gone wrong when it has had a socialist government?.My mate maggie ballsed it up,right wing, more than any leftie.
Paradise on earth may not materialise but the attempt is a worthy cause.From the legend of king Arthur , Robin Hood , the Tolpuddle martyrs we have strived for justice.

0 Replies

@xris,

[quote=xris]Some very good propaganda in the last two posts but only to be consumed by the faithful. It cant help itself, you cant have moral standards that say the fittest survives and not expect these occurrences.[/quote]

I invite you to refute my explanation of the present crisis, in which I placed blame on government intervention. What you don't realize is that greed is a fact of human nature. No revolution will ever change that. To begin your counter-proposal to free market capitalism with the suggestion that we should abolish greed makes that proposal hopelessly unrealistic. The question is not whether or not we can create a system that will eliminate greed, but what system works best in an atmosphere of greed. That system is capitalism, in which greed is actually helpful and productive. People tend not to do things, and so things tend not to get done (inventions, improvements, etc.) when they have nothing to gain personally.

[quote]The banking system failure is a result of capitalism, those who wield the power by the accumulation of wealth control the economy and governments.The strangle hold is secure.Only a ground swell of revolt against this endemic sickness will change the status quo. The problem for change in opinions,is it is constantly supported by the media.The media is or in part ,part of the power structure that convinces the populace that capitalism is the only route society can take.It criticises the sickness but not the cause and by its nature will never take a abstract view of the nature of the system that we have all grown to accept.[/quote]

You are blaming capitalism for the corruption of capitalism. I understand your argument that in a capitalist system, wealth tends to accumulate in a few hands, but power does not have to follow. Only the corruption of the free market and of the American constitution could enable political power be concentrated in the hands of financial oligarchs. Only via government intervention can such corruption occur. J.P. Morgan could not have gained political power by using his vast wealth to build an army and force people to use only his companies. He could however take advantage of a popular desire to 'regulate' the banking sector and ensure that it was 'regulated' to his advantage and to the disadvantage of his competitors. This is exactly what has happened. Government intervention in the market is always needed for a company or a bank to form a monopoly and pervert the market to its own advantages. If the government is granted the power to intervene in the market, it will intervene on behalf of whoever pays it the most. In other words, capitalism does not cause disaster and corruption; government interference with capitalism does.

[quote=xris]I dont need to be told the definition of fascism,the fault i spotted was that fascism was responsible for this recent crisis.How can a democratic republican government suddenly be called fascist..I should be claiming that not you or your comrade.[/quote]

Fascism isn't limited to what happened in Italy and Germany. Fascism basically means the rule of an authoritarian government on behalf of business (certain businesses): the merger of government and business. In practice we have a democracy dominated by two parties both owned lock, stock and barrel by the same special interests. The government puts into place socialist policies that they say are in the interest of the people, when in fact they are serving their private masters. What you don't realize is that the free market isn't pro-business; no specific companies are given any advantage. A monopolistic system, with government granted advantage over competition, is good for certain businesses. Why is it that the congressman and president's most opposed to corruption and greed in the free market, and who regulate the most, are also the ones who receive the most contributions from the very companies they regulate, and who fill their staff with their lobbyists? Socialism is always a vehicle for the ambitions of whichever company or cartel of companies is in control of the government. Yes, the government is always corruptible, but if we don't grant government any powers of intervention, the would-be-corrupters have no favors to buy.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

My reasoning is that the concept of capitalism is the reason why we see the sickness.If you have an immoral reason for living then you cant expect the results to be exactly perfect.Im not saying everyone that works under these conditions are corrupt or greedy but the morals allow its condition.
Certainly there are some that perform the most hideous actions of this culture will go home at night and revert to a moral loving human.
The morals of this system eases his conscious as everyone tells him its the"free market" you can forget your day to day morality ,go man get the contract.
We see it in these iconic moguls ,they can put a thousand workers out of work by moving their factory and then attend a charity function that very evening, in aid of the unemployed.Society admires them their talent for creating wealth, they dont care what tactics he used and some admire the nasty business attributes of their heroes.I'm an old fashion socialist i wont change my colours.
Your reasons for this collapse are the details of a picture that is framed by greed.

1 Reply

@xris,

I agree, people are greedy. And? That will not change. It cannot change. You're looking for a different species, not a different economic system. My proposition is that 1) only the free market is compatible with individual freedom, and 2) the free market is the most effective, practical and mutually beneficial system given the reality of human nature and the world we live in. If your argument rests on the notion that we should change human nature and eliminate greed, then I have nothing else to say.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

Okay xris, I think I have figured another way to illustrate this. Bare with me.
So what we both see as the optimum, is a society that promotes wealth being evenly distributed.
So that it's a system where wealth doesn't polarize and mainly flows to those who already have it.
So to say that it promotes the straightening of the Lorenz curve.

Now, we only differ how to achieve that. Or rather in our expectations on which system will work to achieve that.
You say in a free market economy wealth will always flow to the rich, because the system is rigged in their favor.
So government should redistribute wealth to create equality through socialism. (It's a characterization, don't hangup on every word.)
Correct?

I say that in a free market economy, wealth will automatically distribute evenly. And what rigs the system in favor of the rich, what puts up the barriers that make wealth not flow evenly, is the intervention by the government in someones favor. So to say the cure is worse than the disease. I say that if we let the economy be free, wealth will flow evenly.

The examples you point out, are examples of where government intervention rigs the system in favor of some. And that's the very thing I want to get rid of, you are pro that. You never defined your ideal, only what you don't want. If the government has the power to help one person, it has the power to help the other. And whenever humans try to doctor around to create "fairness" we have horrible results, as we see on the UC admission system.

You say some socialism is good and only the extreme of government intervention is fascism, and I agree. But we disagree on the degree of how much government intervention we want, so either extreme is not a strong argument for either side.
The difference is only the degree of government intervention, as I explained in post 93. There is no difference in kind.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Okay xris, I think I have figured another way to illustrate this. Bare with me.
So what we both see as the optimum, is a society that promotes wealth being evenly distributed.
So that it's a system where wealth doesn't polarize and mainly flows to those who already have it.
So to say that it promotes the straightening of the Lorenz curve.

Now, we only differ how to achieve that. Or rather in our expectations on which system will work to achieve that.
You say in a free market economy wealth will always flow to the rich, because the system is rigged in their favor.
So government should redistribute wealth to create equality through socialism. (It's a characterization, don't hangup on every word.)
Correct?

I say that in a free market economy, wealth will automatically distribute evenly. And what rigs the system in favor of the rich, what puts up the barriers that make wealth not flow evenly, is the intervention by the government in someones favor. So to say the cure is worse than the disease. I say that if we let the economy be free, wealth will flow evenly.

The examples you point out, are examples of where government intervention rigs the system in favor of some. And that's the very thing I want to get rid of, you are pro that. You never defined your ideal, only what you don't want. If the government has the power to help one person, it has the power to help the other. And whenever humans try to doctor around to create "fairness" we have horrible results, as we see on the UC admission system.

You say some socialism is good and only the extreme of government intervention is fascism, and I agree. But we disagree on the degree of how much government intervention we want, so either extreme is not a strong argument for either side.
The difference is only the degree of government intervention, as I explained in post 93. There is no difference in kind.

So give me an example where capitalism has distributed the wealth more evenly without government intervention.In the US we have the most defined right wing capitalist economy and the wealth still hangs around in 10% of the population.Your theories are based on your opinions not any thought out process of moral or even economic reasoning.I don't want to rob the rich ,I'm not Robin Hood.I want safeguards for the underprivileged and certain certainties in their life.

2 Replies

@xris,

xris, this was a bit of effort. Think about it before rejecting it please. :a-ok:

xris;60351 wrote:

So give me an example where capitalism has distributed the wealth more evenly without government intervention.In the US we have the most defined right wing capitalist economy and the wealth still hangs around in 10% of the population.

If you want an example of how the poor benefit from unrestrained capitalism, lets for example look at a poor kid from India - or even rural areas of developed nations. He can get work in a call center of an American company, instead of just being poor and having no chances, thanks to unrestrained capitalism. If we had taxed that company instead, to give the money to someone else, the company could not have offered that opportunity to him. And this is how it works, equality will fall into place naturally. If we let it.
Of course that does in no way contradict helping those, who can't participate because of age or disability etc.
Now this is only the beginning, think of this equality of opportunity in the extreme, that whoever is the most qualified gets the job. As opposed to equality of outcome, where we create beneficial situations for the rich and take the income of their employees and distribute it among those, who's chance we take by creating special beneficial situations for the rich.

As I believe that "capitalism" has the bad attributes you mention because it's not allowed to be real capitalism, historic examples need to be looked at with caution. Well, there are quite a few of examples of too much government power, see germany and soviet russia, but I can't think of one example where too little government control was the problem.
I'm saying that less government intervention means greater equality, and more of it means greater inequality. Yes, America is a largely capitalist nation, but I rather think that the failures you ascribe to capitalism in the US are not the fault of capitalism, but the lack of capitalism. The US has a greater middle class (less wealth in the hands of the super-rich) than European nations, and European nations are more socialist than the US. I would suggest that the problem of super-rich getting richer is not capitalism, but it's restriction.

If you bab me over the head with a big stick, I would tumble around and fall over myself. Is it right to point out that I'm falling over myself, hence I must be stupid? It's me who falls over, but it's not my fault.

xris;60351 wrote:

Your theories are based on your opinions not any thought out process of moral or even economic reasoning.

Yes, but you got to admit that this is the same for your side. And my outlook needs fewer assumptions to work. It does not require humans not to be greedy, it rather uses greed for the better. It does not require the government to not abuse it's power, as it doesn't grant the government as much power. And peace and progress will naturally follow according to my theory, and are not a matter of artificial charity.

xris;60351 wrote:

I don't want to rob the rich ,I'm not Robin Hood.I want safeguards for the underprivileged and certain certainties in their life.

Actually, that's what I want. You use nicer wording, but you've been arguing for the "rob the rich" side throughout this thread. As you can't have the "give" part without a "take" part.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Sorry but your replies are becoming more and more rhetoric and accepting of certain certainties without proof or debate.You make assumptions of my position because of your extreme views about certain historic socialist countries.Remember im a moderate, i only ever want a just society where fear of poverty or sickness is removed and education is privilege of all ,not just the few.If it means taxing those with more, so be it..

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;60362 wrote:

Remember im a moderate, i only ever want a just society where fear of poverty or sickness is removed and education is privilege of all ,not just the few.If it means taxing those with more, so be it..

Umm... ok. Well, then we just plain disagree. I think it is both impossible and undesirable to remove the fear of poverty, it is what keeps human progress rolling. Then you're not a moderate, you're a hardcore utopian socialist, sorry.
Unless we're living in some sort of perfect world, where machines do all the work, and all our needs are me, that's just not going to happen.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Umm... ok. Well, then we just plain disagree. I think it is both impossible and undesirable to remove the fear of poverty, it is what keeps human progress rolling. Then you're not a moderate, you're a hardcore utopian socialist, sorry.
Unless we're living in some sort of perfect world, where machines do all the work, and all our needs are me, that's just not going to happen.

Your views come from an American right wing perspective and i expect nothing else.All your views are completely opposite to mine, gun laws , drug legislation, the lot.I cant help your brain washed blinkered view of life but i can have sympathy for your self centred , insular education.You are product, a symptom of the great American dream.
In europe im a moderate, in your America i am a subversive commie red ba....Its all down to perspective, i wish you well but not success.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;60378 wrote:

Your views come from an American right wing perspective and i expect nothing else.All your views are completely opposite to mine, gun laws , drug legislation, the lot.I cant help your brain washed blinkered view of life but i can have sympathy for your self centred , insular education.You are product, a symptom of the great American dream.

I could say the same about you being a product of the constant liberal propaganda of Europe. But I didn't. I think it doesn't matter.

If all that matters is which side gets to us first, then debating is kind of meaningless, ain't it? Sad

xris;60378 wrote:

In europe im a moderate, in your America i am a subversive commie red ba....Its all down to perspective,

Well, yes. Europe's view is shifted to the left. It's all a matter of perspective.
In China 1960, you would be a right-winger.

xris;60378 wrote:

i wish you well but not success.

Not success. Why not? I wish you well all the way.

2 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

I could say the same about you being a product of the constant liberal propaganda of Europe. But I didn't. I think it doesn't matter.

You know you couldn't disagree with him and actually have a considered point of view.

We brainwashed heathens are just beyond hope and could never see the light.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

Do you ever feel for those less fortunate than you? Do you find yourself judging their inadequacies as a determined fault? I wish you every personal success but not your politics.thanks Xris..

---------- Post added at 02:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 PM ----------

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

You know you couldn't disagree with him and actually have a considered point of view.

We brainwashed heathens are just beyond hope and could never see the light.

Ah we come from a view that considered my debating skillls as those of an inferior being and you take the high road..:perplexed:
Look around you and see the unfortunate, what do you presume? when a nation can have such a divide from fortunate to destitute, dont lecture me on consideration.I judge a community on its less fortunate not on the excesses of its successful rich.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;60392 wrote:

Do you ever feel for those less fortunate than you? Do you find yourself judging their inadequacies as a determined fault?

Oh, I absolutely feel for those less fortunate than me. But I believe the best way to create a better standard of living for everyone is expecting (and giving the opportunity) for everyone to create it himself, plus helping those who can't.
"Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and you will feed him for the rest of his life."
"You gotta be tough to be kind." Like raising children. Just giving them stuff will spoil them.
Unfair benefits is the problem in the first place, we don't solve that through giving other special benefits.

xris;60392 wrote:

I wish you every personal success but not your politics.

Same here. As I believe that the politics you were convinced of is the door to authoritarianism.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Oh, I absolutely feel for those less fortunate than me. But I believe the best way to create a better standard of living for everyone is expecting (and giving the opportunity) for everyone to create it himself, plus helping those who can't.
"Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and you will feed him for the rest of his life."
"You gotta be tough to be kind." Like raising children. Just giving them stuff will spoil them.
Unfair benefits is the problem in the first place, we don't solve that through giving other special benefits.

Same here. As I believe that the politics you were convinced of is the door to authoritarianism.

So you believe in giving free education? teaching them to fish? How do you presume to pay for this free education? they have no income so where do you obtain this money to pay for this extravagance? Oh they are sick by the way, so before they can be taught they need medical attention, do we educate only the healthy? Oh they are hungry, will you feed them while you educate them or shall they die of hunger before you can teach them????????????????

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

Nero,

In response to your post a few pages back in which you provided your interpretation of the various economic systems, I see two problems.

First, one cannot categorize the various systems accurately on the sort of diagram you have. It wouldn't be perfect either but I think an improvement would be to go with a two dimensional graph. I am not going to go through the process of drawing it out, but along one axis would be the type of resource distribution with one end being common/collective and the other being individual. Along the other axis would be generally the method of resource distribution with one end being a command economy and the other being pricing market economy.

Secondly, I think these systems need to be described, as they have been slightly mischaracterized.

Capitalism is a system in which the factors of production, such as land, labor, machinery, and so on are owned privately and individually. It generally rests upon a market system, as private ownership carries with it the right of trade and disposal. However, a market system does not necessarily lead to capitalism as we know of it today.

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.

In my opinion, capitalism as we know it is facilitated by state intervention on behalf of moneyed and powerful interests.

Socialism, on the other hand, is largely a reaction to the mercantilist/capitalist development of the Western economy. It is not really a specific economic system or theory like capitalism, rather it is a nebulous collection of complaints and explanations of the problems of capitalism. To explain really what socialism actually is, one needs to understand its principle complaint: that private property ownership, more accurately the factors of production (many socialists distinguish between property and possessions) causes exploitation of the labor force. This exploitation occurs through wage slavery, as the owners of capital extract more labor value from the workers than what the laborers are getting paid.

Now, so far in this thread socialism has been portrayed as a statist proposal, but this is not necessarily true. A long list of self-proclaimed socialists have argued that capital ownership exists not in spite of government intervention, but precisely because of it. They have argued that certain perpetuated government monopolies, money, land, banking and credit, etc, are the only reason the capital/labor divide could be maintained. Socialists like Proudhon, Tucker, and other mutualists believe in a free market where the contract is maintained, but invision a system of collective actions and worker self-management.

I will continue with more later, but you can comment and reply all you want.

---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 PM ----------

xris wrote:

Ah we come from a view that considered my debating skillls as those of an inferior being and you take the high road..:perplexed:
Look around you and see the unfortunate, what do you presume? when a nation can have such a divide from fortunate to destitute, dont lecture me on consideration.I judge a community on its less fortunate not on the excesses of its successful rich.

Justice cannot be judged in such a way. It is a process and not an end.

4 Replies

@Mr Fight the Power,

Justice is blind im no such thing.

0 Replies

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power;60399 wrote:

I will continue with more later, but you can comment and reply all you want.

Thanks, I have been looking forward to your answer. Smile

I'm still going through it, but so far I agree.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

xris;60398 wrote:

So you believe in giving free education? teaching them to fish? How do you presume to pay for this free education? they have no income so where do you obtain this money to pay for this extravagance? Oh they are sick by the way, so before they can be taught they need medical attention, do we educate only the healthy? Oh they are hungry, will you feed them while you educate them or shall they die of hunger before you can teach them????????????????

Of course we have to raise taxes, from those who already know how to fish.
Currently the first 2 fish are tax free, the next 8 are taxed at 50%, the next 5 at 75%, and from there they are taxed at 90%. But from 50 fish, someone only pays 20%.
So if they catch 5 fish we take 1.5 of them, if they catch 10 fish we take 4 of them, if they catch 15 fish we take 7.75 of them, and if they catch 20 we take 12.25 of them.
Now a fisherman who catches 20 fish could work longer to catch 30 fish. But he would have to pay 21.25 in taxes and would only be able to keep 8.75 of them. As opposed to 7.75 when catching 20. So a third more work for keeping one more fish? Why would he do that? So he will only catch 20 and there will be 10 fewer fish to feed humanity.
If we instead tax everyone at 50% (to illustrate a consumption tax, which doesn't really fit into the analogy), we don't offer a disincentive for catching more fish. So the fisher who wants to catch 30 instead of 20 fish will do that. We take half of that, the first 2 are still free, he keeps 21. So there is a tax income of 9 fish. Hurray, that's more state income than 7.75 fish. More fish for the guy, more fish to feed the hungry. Everybody wins.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Of course we have to raise taxes, from those who already know how to fish.
Currently the first 2 fish are tax free, the next 8 are taxed at 50%, the next 5 at 75%, and from there they are taxed at 90%. But from 50 fish, someone only pays 20%.
So if they catch 5 fish we take 1.5 of them, if they catch 10 fish we take 4 of them, if they catch 15 fish we take 7.75 of them, and if they catch 20 we take 12.25 of them.
Now a fisherman who catches 20 fish could work longer to catch 30 fish. But he would have to pay 21.25 in taxes and would only be able to keep 8.75 of them. As opposed to 7.75 when catching 20. So a third more work for keeping one more fish? Why would he do that? So he will only catch 20 and there will be 10 fewer fish to feed humanity.
If we instead tax everyone at 50% (to illustrate a consumption tax, which doesn't really fit into the analogy), we don't offer a disincentive for catching more fish. So the fisher who wants to catch 30 instead of 20 fish will do that. We take half of that, the first 2 are still free, he keeps 21. So there is a tax income of 9 fish. Hurray, that's more state income than 7.75 fish. More fish for the guy, more fish to feed the hungry. Everybody wins.

Your explaining your view on socialism.You had to tax the rich...richer..to help the poor.QED.....

1 Reply

Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know