9
   

Are socialist more moral than Capitalist?

 
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2015 01:33 am
Are Socialist more Moral than Capitalist?
Are Vegans and vegetarians more moral than omnivores?
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2015 03:24 am
@argome321,
argome321 wrote:

Are Socialist more Moral than Capitalist?
Are Vegans and vegetarians more moral than omnivores?



Is giving someone something in which they do not deserve is that moral? I say no. If you give people things for free, you are essentially forcing labor on someone else and providing free labor to those who get it for doing nothing.

In capitalism you don't get this problem. You exchange labor for labor. Which is fair.

Socialists always want to give someone else's labor away for free. That is immoral.

argome321
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2015 07:24 am
@Krumple,
"Socialists always want to give someone else's labor away for free. That is immoral.'

I attended public schools including city college, which prepared and help me contribute to my community as well as to society, which I would have not been able to do without that public education. Isn't that a form of socialism? I've now retired and collecting social security which I contributed to when I was working.
Is that an immoral act?

In some cases men are paid more then women for the same job. lol
During that first half of the 20th century unions were vilified and considered
red commies, were called pinkos, but in the latter half of that same said century Unions were and still considered today as American as Apple pie and mom

The national Football league is made up of billionaires who use a social system to run their League, They share the tv rights. meaning the smaller tv markets get equal share of all monies paid out by the tv networks, so even though the new york teams have larger markets they must share their monies with the lesser markets like green bay etc. Otherwise the smaller markets will not survive. this works and is well received when it comes to sports but not when it comes to people, I think there is something immoral about this.
Kolyo
 
  2  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2015 12:55 am
@argome321,
Krumple wrote:

In capitalism you don't get this problem. You exchange labor for labor. Which is fair.

Socialists always want to give someone else's labor away for free. That is immoral.


That's an innumerate 5-year-old's understanding of capitalism.

Here's a more worldly version:

A rich man trades 100 hours of his "labor" to a team of lawyers in exchange for 100 hours of their labor (perfectly fair, so far!), which consists of drawing up a confusing contract stipulating that he will trade 100 hours of his "labor" to some poor suckers in exchange for 1000 hours of their own labor. Why does the rich man do this? Because it's nice to net 800 hours of "labor"! (The 900 hours that he stole from the workers, minus the 100 hours in expenses that he paid the lawyers, represents a net gain from the contract of 800 overall for him.) Why do the suckers agree to this deal? Two reasons: (1) they are financially desperate; (2) they aren't lawyers and can't read a contract.

If that wasn't priceless enough, it gets even better. What happens then is that some bleeding-heart liberal (who is not by any means a socialist) will eventually come along and notice that the suckers are trading 1000 hours of their own labor for 100 hours of the capitalist's "labor", which is not nearly enough "labor" for them to live on. The liberal will try to take back a mere 100 hours of the capitalist's net gain from the contract, in order to give it to the suckers so that they might eat and have housing, and people like Krumple will call that "immoral". Wonderful system!

However, no one should think me guilty of proposing that we overthrow capitalism and create some kind of "workers' state" like the true utopian socialists propose. Because guess who would then decide which of us got what? Why ... that rich guy and his lawyer friends, of course! (Except they'd be calling themselves "heroes of the revolution" instead of "job creators".)

What's the moral of this hopeless story? It's that no economic system is really fair (neither market capitalism nor centrally planned socialism), so we should correct our system outcomes to ensure that everyone has food, housing, and access to K-through-12 education.

===

PS -- Sorry if that story was a bit cryptically worded. When I used the term "labor" in shudder quotes, what I really meant was "the cash money that we get for our labor". When I used the term without shudder quotes, I meant actual labor. Maybe if people re-read what I wrote with that in mind it will be clearer.
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2015 08:10 am
@Krumple,
I do not know of any economic system driven by morality.
I do not see how any economic system would and or could be fair, capitalistic or socialistic.
The problem to me seems to lie in our need to fulfill our individual drives and at the same time to meet our social needs which at times are in conflict.

The lack of being able to see a long term resolutions verses short terms and immediate needs, perceived or not I think. Those would seek and plan long term solutions verses those who can't or not willing.

In my misguided youth I once worked in Retail selling hardware, paint, lightning, furniture and flooring etc, you get he picture. This was a chain store and beside having a base salary we worked on a commission. The store I was assigned to as my main store, my associate ad I decided we would share our commissions giving us the opportunity to take care of our other duties like inventory, sells and cashiering etc, without fighting and tripping over each other to meet our commission quotas. It worked for us because we were of the same mind.

During the vacation periods I was often assign to other stores to cover when one of their salesperson was on vacation, many of these other store used individual based commission which meant each had to hustle for your commission and take care of your other duties as well, for me this was not a problem. I always made my commissions, so either environment worked well for me.
one might conclude that this was an experimentation in working in a capitalist setting and working in a socialistic setting and perhaps it is fair to state that it is too small a sample to make any major opinions about capitalism systems verse socialism system,s but it is the components of the system that make or break that system. In this case it is the individuals that compose the systems that determines whether if it succeeds or fails perhaps. That is what i take and conclude in my humble opinion, and nothing more than my humble and ignorant opinion.
And if it is the components, the people, that determine the outcome how do we correct the flaw? It would seem impossible if not monumental.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2015 08:13 am
@argome321,
Socialists are more moral than capitalists. Capitalists are more moral than socialists. Vegetarians are more moral than omnivores. Omnivores are more moral than vegetarians. There are different systems of morality, and each person decides which one to adopt. If you start this discussion, we are all going to opine that our own point of view is the most moral.

(However, vegans are just crazy.)
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2015 08:32 am
@maxdancona,
"Socialists are more moral than capitalists. Capitalists are more moral than socialists. Vegetarians are more moral than omnivores. Omnivores are more moral than vegetarians. There are different systems of morality, and each person decides which one to adopt. If you start this discussion, we are all going to opine that our own point of view is the most moral.

(However, vegans are just crazy.)"

So I'm going to assume the moral dilemma is unsolvable?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2015 08:34 am
@argome321,
I don't know what the moral dilemma is.

I was born into a society and I adapted a system of morals that worked for me in that context. A lot my moral beliefs come from my parents and people around me. Some of my moral beliefs I took on because it allowed me to make better sense of my society and my personal experience of the world around me. Now I have a perfectly good moral system that is fully functional and allows me to live a pretty good life in the environment where I find myself.

In most societies, throughout most of human history, my system of morals (which is perfectly appropriate for 21st century North America) would have failed. In a tribal society in Europe 3000 years ago my dislike of violence, rejection of despotism, and desire to see equal gender roles would have meant a nasty and short life. In China 50 years ago my belief in free expression would get me in trouble. Even in the US 150 years ago, I would have (and would have had to) adapt my moral system to the current culture.

I have a moral system that works for me here and now. I don't see any dilemma.
0 Replies
 
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2015 09:44 am
@maxdancona,
"I have a moral system that works for me here and now. I don't see any dilemma."

But that is the dilemma I speak of, when ones' personal dilemma clashes with another whose morality is diametrically opposite. e. g. Is slavery ever morally right? Perhaps other are concerned, or not , about others' morality and how it will effect them,perhaps they are justified in doing so? And if it is impossible to come to some unified consensus about morality in a modern world made smaller through technology, how will we live? Will might make right?. Will terrorists tactics continue to become the norm where there is disagreement?




CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2015 10:41 am
There is a general consensus towards moral and having a social conscience.
There is no such thing as a true socialist, we established that this system isn't working in reality. However, in a democracy, having a social conscience is part of morality. One gladly pays more taxes in order to have enough revenues for the less fortunate ones who need help at one time or another to get back on their feet. One also pays more taxes in order to have everyone covered by healthcare.

The capitalist is looking out for himself as #1 priority. His moral obligation is to make sure he can advance without having to pay out too much. A capitalist believes that everyone is their own maker, if you don't have enough funds for healthcare - too bad! If you are sick and lose your job, you're helped out for a few weeks, but then you better be back on your feet. A capitalist is looking at society as a tool to help him advance in his own plea of accumulating wealth.

It is clear who is moral, taking the general consensus, however, that hillbilly who vehemently defends his second amendment rights without looking at the implications that "his right" has caused already, sees himself as moral too - and you know why? Because he goes to church every Sunday!!
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2015 11:09 am
@argome321,
argome321 wrote:

But that is the dilemma I speak of, when ones' personal dilemma clashes with another whose morality is diametrically opposite. e. g. Is slavery ever morally right? Perhaps other are concerned, or not , about others' morality and how it will effect them,perhaps they are justified in doing so? And if it is impossible to come to some unified consensus about morality in a modern world made smaller through technology, how will we live? Will might make right?. Will terrorists tactics continue to become the norm where there is disagreement?


I don't exactly know what you mean by "terrorist tactics" but I don't see of any way to deal with differences in morality other than the use of force.

We ended slavery in the US by killing lots of people. We the Native American culture living in Florida by physically removing them (and many of them died).

We firebombed Dresden to get rid of the Nazi's. We imprison and sometimes kill people who have sex with children (a practice that was considered moral in many cultures including Ancient Greece and in the Bible).

Morality is generally imposed by violence (or by legal pressure backed by the threat of violence). I don't see any other way.

CalamityJane
 
  3  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2015 12:06 pm
@maxdancona,
I think you should have paid more attention to your history classes, when you were in school. You paint your world in very simple colors and that's even an understatement.

Moral imposed by violence? The dumbest thing I ever heard!!
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2015 12:26 pm
@CalamityJane,
I paid very close attention to history classes. Do you disagree that Fascism was put down by force? We agree that pedophilia is immoral, do you disagree that we use force (or should use force) to prevent it? Why are so many people in jail (when very few are there voluntarily)?

If someone is acting in a way society feels is immoral, it is clear we use force to stop them. I don´t see how this is even controversial?



argome321
 
  2  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2015 01:29 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
If someone is acting in a way society feels is immoral, it is clear we use force to stop them. I don´t see how this is even controversial?


but some laws are immoral and were changed through non-violence. in fact, those committing the violence were the ones who created and backed those immoral laws, see civil right movement USA 1960s
those laws were changed through civil disobedience and protest and an acknowledgement of civil wrongs.

and as far as understanding fascism and the second world war, which actually was a continuation of world war 0ne, if the people hadn't been lazy and greedy and compliant and tolerant of Hitler, world war 2 would never have happen.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2015 03:26 pm
@argome321,
I assume you don't think all laws that are enforced with physical force are immoral.

Most of us currently agree that pedophilia is immoral. When someone practices it, we arrest them and put them in jail against their will.

Do you agree with this use of force?
argome321
 
  2  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2015 03:38 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Most of us currently agree that pedophilia is immoral. When someone practices it, we arrest them and put them in jail against their will.

Do you agree with this use of force?


you make many assumptions in your posts. How do you know you need force? How do you know that they don't want to be in jail? Not all laws are morally based. How do you know that some criminals commit crimes because they rather be in jail because the don't believe they can make it on the outside. How many people who are mentally challenged or mentally ill are in jail?

I have nothing against using force when it is necessary and just and when authorities are left with no other alternative. Not all situations require force.
Perhaps we will fail or succeed in our attempts to deal with criminal in a more humane manner, we should never rule that out. Neuroscience may lead the way, perhaps these pedophiles and rapist have disorders. I don't know, but it might be worthwhile to find out, thus eliminating the crimes before they occur.

RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2015 08:54 pm
@argome321,
All of your how do you know's are acknowledgements of what Max said in an attempt by you to string out this argument.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2015 08:58 pm
@Kolyo,
Kolyo wrote:

Krumple wrote:

In capitalism you don't get this problem. You exchange labor for labor. Which is fair.

Socialists always want to give someone else's labor away for free. That is immoral.


That's an innumerate 5-year-old's understanding of capitalism.

Here's a more worldly version:

A rich man trades 100 hours of his "labor" to a team of lawyers in exchange for 100 hours of their labor (perfectly fair, so far!), which consists of drawing up a confusing contract stipulating that he will trade 100 hours of his "labor" to some poor suckers in exchange for 1000 hours of their own labor. Why does the rich man do this? Because it's nice to net 800 hours of "labor"! (The 900 hours that he stole from the workers, minus the 100 hours in expenses that he paid the lawyers, represents a net gain from the contract of 800 overall for him.) Why do the suckers agree to this deal? Two reasons: (1) they are financially desperate; (2) they aren't lawyers and can't read a contract.

If that wasn't priceless enough, it gets even better. What happens then is that some bleeding-heart liberal (who is not by any means a socialist) will eventually come along and notice that the suckers are trading 1000 hours of their own labor for 100 hours of the capitalist's "labor", which is not nearly enough "labor" for them to live on. The liberal will try to take back a mere 100 hours of the capitalist's net gain from the contract, in order to give it to the suckers so that they might eat and have housing, and people like Krumple will call that "immoral". Wonderful system!

However, no one should think me guilty of proposing that we overthrow capitalism and create some kind of "workers' state" like the true utopian socialists propose. Because guess who would then decide which of us got what? Why ... that rich guy and his lawyer friends, of course! (Except they'd be calling themselves "heroes of the revolution" instead of "job creators".)

What's the moral of this hopeless story? It's that no economic system is really fair (neither market capitalism nor centrally planned socialism), so we should correct our system outcomes to ensure that everyone has food, housing, and access to K-through-12 education.

===

PS -- Sorry if that story was a bit cryptically worded. When I used the term "labor" in shudder quotes, what I really meant was "the cash money that we get for our labor". When I used the term without shudder quotes, I meant actual labor. Maybe if people re-read what I wrote with that in mind it will be clearer.


What you failed to mention is the amount of money and time these lawyers put in to get a licence to practice law. I mean why don't you make the same argument for doctors? Why is it hospitals charge so much for medical care? It is because the doctors are attempting to reclaim some of their labor put in or lost by the hundreds of hours of study and the cost of schooling. They make up for it in a return in investment of those lost hours and labor. The same is true for lawyers.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2015 07:32 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

All of your how do you know's are acknowledgements of what Max said in an attempt by you to string out this argument.



How do you know that, Rabel...or are you just guessing?
0 Replies
 
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2015 11:00 am
@CalamityJane,
Quote:
The capitalist is looking out for himself as #1 priority. His moral obligation is to make sure he can advance without having to pay out too much. A capitalist believes that everyone is their own maker, if you don't have enough funds for healthcare - too bad! If you are sick and lose your job, you're helped out for a few weeks, but then you better be back on your feet. A capitalist is looking at society as a tool to help him advance in his own plea of accumulating wealth.


If he is looking out for himself is that long term or short term? Is that wise or unwise? Does he possess enough wisdom? Will he need assistance to do this and will he play fair to do this? Does he have the vision to see the larger or greater picture?
I wonder if he is influence by Ayn Rand's Objectivism?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Are socialist more moral than Capitalist?
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/15/2017 at 08:03:30