Socialism/Capitalism?

Members Area Member Polls
21

Does a laissez faire, democratic government cause this, or is it because of one form or another of mob rule, dictatorship, or collectivism (all altruist principals really).

America used to be the place where people came to and heard “Welcome to America, good luck.” It produced many rag to riches stories even to today (I think everyone knows one, at least, I do). The country that took the poorest and turned them into the wealthiest people ever because of their work. Now, America is the place where people come and expect to get free shit. Free healthcare, free housing, free food, free money, free whateverthefuck you think you deserve regardless of the quality and amount of work you do.

22

Davan:

You seem to advocate a pure capitalist philosophy. So:

Lets do away with Social Security, Welfare, Medicare and all “Socialist” type programs.

What do we have left? The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? -With FEW rags to riches exceptions.

There are limits to resources, so not everyone can become rich. Furthermore, a country needs a strong middle class and working class to prosper. Will the rich serve in the military, be your garbageman, police, etc? Usually not! Furthermore, Why was Social Security developed in the first place? Why were anti-monopoly laws created? What about Robber barons and capitalism unhindered?

Learn history, read MANY books, not just the one’s that support your value system. Endeavor always to learn more…

Btw, I am NOT an advocate for a "Pure Socialist” society either.

23

Explain how the poor make any more money in socialism. They are given an incentive to not work so they may still get the free money and services. The rich may not get as rich as quickly, but the poor surely do not get any richer. On that topic, what is wrong with some of the poor (specifically those who do not wish to work in the first place) getting poorer? Do they deserve to receive money if they aren’t willing to work even 20 hours a week? Socialist policies hurt the MIDDLE CLASS the most. The people who make too much money to be pitied and given benefits and have their own money taken away, yet do not make enough money to still live a comfortable life without it. No one said that people should not help others, but robbery to help somebody else is hardly a noble deed. If people want and see fit to help others, then they should be allowed to help. If they do not, then we should not steal their money to do so.

There are limits to resources, so not everyone can become rich. [quote]Furthermore, a country needs a strong middle class
Which is why socialism will NEVER be successful in a non-dependent country and never over the long term. France and Germany are doing just great with their socialism. Canada’s health system is a great example for the rest of the world :rolleyes:

Will the
e rich serve in the military, be your garbageman, police, etc? Usually not!
I’d be interested to find out how many of those in the congress have, at some point, been involved in the military. Look at the various officials in US history–many have been in the military. Garbagemen, police, and those in the military are far from poor.

Furthermore, Why was Social Security developed in the first place? Why were anti-monopoly laws created? What about Robber barons and capitalism unhindered?

You may still have a legal monopoly. The monopolies outlawed, for the most part, are ones that usually make maneuvors that are blatantly illegal and infringe on the rights of others, although, not all of the so called illegal monopolies. Social security? Some terrible reason. The fact you defend a program that will be bankrupt without heavy reform and a program that essentially stole the money of many is quite ridiculous.

Learn history, read MANY books, not just the one’s that support your value system. Endeavor always to learn more…

Bring up some good points and I might consider it. Sadly, I have wasted my time reading into different socialistic and communistic philosophies. The history tells me enough. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc. were all collectivists and showed what kind of system it will produce. Never has there been genocide committed by a laissez-faire, small government democracy.

24

I can see were this is going:

  1. You will have a plaster for every sore.
  2. Even common sense should tell you that no system is perfect and without flaw.
  3. You are NOT going to turn me into an advocate for socialism.

Like I stated in my last sentence in my previous post. I am NOT a Pure Socialist advocate.

However, there is a reason no Western country has adopted a pure capitalistic society. For example, I tell you about the rich serving in the military, being garbageman, police, etc. And you give me some lame excuse about congressmen?!? -As if the criteria for being in congress is wealth?!?

Furthermore, I tell you to read more books and learn more and you say:

“Bring up some good points and I might consider it.”

You should always want to learn more and grow as an intelligent human being. No one should have to convince you to learn. Besides, I don’t work for you!

25

The question is, was there a sore in the first place?

  1. Even common sense should tell you that no system is perfect and without flaw.
    Typical response of an altruist. Never said anything about perfect, although, maybe I should have.
  1. You are NOT going to turn me into an advocate for socialism.
    Great :slight_smile:

However, there is a reason no Western country has adopted a pure capitalistic society. For example, I tell you about the rich serving in the military, being garbageman, police, etc. And you give me some lame excuse about congressmen?!? -As if the criteria for being in congress is wealth?!?
The US came about as close as you could get pre-New Deal (although I will admit not purely capitalistic). There is a difference between a laissez-faire and ANARCHO capitalism. I hope you understand the difference and where I am coming from on the matter. Excuse about congressmen? No excuse at all, simply a fact. How do you know some of the rich had not previously been in those positions? It’s common knowledge that many of the wealthies people today were nothing and went from the bottom up. We have truck drivers that became CEOs (and they didn’t even start the company!) and bobbin (sp) boys that became the wealthiest men to walk the planet.

You should always want to learn more and grow as an intelligent human being. No one should have to convince you to learn. Besides, I don’t work for you!

The point is that I already read, quite a bit actually. Because I do not agree with your ideas, you somehow come to think that I don’t read books (a common liberal and socialist criticism of conservatism and capitalism). A solid knowledge of different collectivist societies in the past is one of the key factors that has driven me to my beliefs, along with the writing of various philosophers and economists.

26

Your problem is you’re so quick to lable people Altruist?? Haha, You don’t know me at all…

Look, you offer no criticism of capitalism only socialism, I, on the otherhand, see flaws In BOTH.

Are you trying to tell us there are no flaws with laissez-faire capitalism?

27

To believe in socialism you MUST be an altruist to some extent.

Look, you offer no criticism of capitalism only socialism, I, on the otherhand, see flaws In BOTH.
And the criticism was taken apart fairly easily. Come on, you say you’re well read. There ARE better arguments to present than what you have. Let me hear them.

Are you trying to tell us there are no flaws with laissez-faire capitalism?

Based on the values I hold, there are none.

28

You’ve said it all! Based on your VALUES laissez-faire capitalism is perfect. I am well read and educated enough to know that core values (like religion, politics, etc.) are close to impossible to change.

So quit trying to bait me man, it’s not going to work!

29

Davan, to keep it somewhat rudimentary, my presentation of the excerpts was just something I found with an approximately 2min. search, with some more time, one could probably quote the whole sections as pure nonsense. I wanted people to read the whole crap. ‘There is only so much you can learn about western culture by reading Lucky Luke’ :wink: …eventually, if you want to learn more, you have to dig into books and other boring stuff, although academically accepted notions.

http://importanceofphilosophy.com/ is a poor tribute to Ayn Rand, a self-proclaimed philosopher with no backing in the academic community – but since most of academia is failed capitalists, you probably don’t mind that. The objectivist movement is kind of dead, intellectually at least; it stumbled on its own quest for ‘objective and absolute reason’. When people reasoned against them in a different way, with better reason I might add, they were excluded (talk about reason in that). It’s kind of like proclaiming you’re the fastest in the world, but refuse to participate in any competition or test.

I just want to comment on the ‘altruist’ deal. WTF! Altruism means UNSELFISHNESS. That is, BEING UNSELFISH, meaning, unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others. Please refer to a dictionary, it’s perfectly clear by definition (since August Comte presented the term in the 19th century). Why go and change it? Its like: As of now, I will refer to the term chair as a sitting device with only one leg. Therein, I will conclude that chairs are unstable objects! Duh! Are parents that ‘sacrifice’ something in their lives, for the welfare of their children, evil?

So now, unselfishness (or should I say sacrifice) is a moral sin, and consequently: selfishness (in the capitalist sense) is regarded as a virtue. Moreover, Hitler, Mao and Stalin were altruists, unselfish, people, and that’s why millions of people lost their lives? I’m dumbfounded; somehow I don’t see the connection between being altruistic and a massacre of millions? Exactly who did they sacrifice for? What? How? But since you seem to know their history in detail, up to their personal qualities, please enlighten me. Ar you sure they were altruistic???

Now, here’s my short list of altruistic people: Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, and basically any human being looking past their own belly.

30

You offered answers to his criticism of capitalism flaws. I wouldn’t say you took it apart “fairly easily.” Quite frankly most of the answers you gave equated to socialism being worse as oppose to addressing capitalism flaws directly.

He asked you about:

“The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? -With FEW rags to riches exceptions.”

You answered:

“Explain how the poor make any more money in socialism.”

Although that may be true, it doesn’t address the flaw in capitalism.

Here’s another one:

“Why was Social Security developed in the first place? Why were anti-monopoly laws created? What about Robber barons and capitalism unhindered?”

You answered:

“You may still have a legal monopoly. The monopolies outlawed, for the most part, are ones that usually make maneuvers that are blatantly illegal and infringe on the rights of others, although, not all of the so called illegal monopolies. Social security? Some terrible reason. The fact you defend a program that will be bankrupt without heavy reform and a program that essentially stole the money of many is quite ridiculous.”

Here, instead of addressing why the New Deal policies were implemented in the first place Post Great Depression, you go into defining monopolies and accusing him of defending Social Security.

Like I said at the beginning: You offered answers to his criticism of capitalism flaws. That doesn’t mean it equated to taking his criticism apart fairly easily. Hey, I find flaws in capitalism. However, I still believe capitalism is superior to socialism. But to pretend its flawless is nonsense.

31

Social Darwinism.

32

Just kidding.

33

Social security dying is just baloney, just like the whole ideology of laissez-faire capitalism. However, I’m not proclaiming socialism as the answer; we saw how that ended. Neither extreme is any good. We need educated and responsible citizens as well as decision-making in a participatory democratic fashion.

We don’t know social security will be dissolved, its one alternative among many possible outcomes, albeit somewhat over-proclaimed and by no means unavoidable – but the loud will shout until you think it’s actually true. Show the facts first, argue later – propaganda will not suffice! It depends on what people want, simple as that - yes, democracy is actually a good thing!

Laissez-fair is just nonsense because earth’s resources are limited while demand can be endless. We are already limiting choices for generations to come – for example, pollution is considered a fair trade-off when money is to be gained. At some point, somewhere, someone is truly fucked and lacking in options – being a hardcore capitalist or not.

I say we need more sensible and altruistic people on this earth, as compared to others who feel that dog eat dog is sufficient.

34

Just to add…

I think there needs to be an understanding why Social Security was developed in the first place. Social Security was not founded for “Some terrible reason.”

The Social Security Act created a system of old-age pensions and unemployment insurance. It consists of public programs to protect workers and their families from income losses associated with old age, illness, unemployment, or death. Social Security developed during a period of time when the ill, unemployed and elderly had little to no relief.

Having said that, times have changed… Social Security needs an overhaul and/or government needs to manage revenues better… However, it does not mean you throw away the baby with the bath water.

35

a fairly interesting experiment on economic principles was conducted while the first “ultima online” game was made public

initially the creators created a completely open, uncontroled world, the only principles where prety much the basic “human” rights.

during the first year the game was going severly downhill, the problem was that no new players could enjoy, or for that matter, enter the gaming world. The strong that had powerfull items and many levels just dominated the playing field, the had all the welth and all the power.

later on the mods tried a soscialistic scenario, at which prety much everything was controled, while game sales where better deu to the fact that most players could fairly fast aquire what was needed to play and have fun it became obvious that a)the system was easy to trick and b)there was a constant need to suply new items to keep things “interesting”. There was almost no drive to evolve since the rewards of evolution where strictly controled.

in the end (and what they use now) is a mix of both, some mod interference and a fair amount of liberty

make of that what you will

what bugs me the most though is this:

capitalism is very similar to evolution, the best survives based on the “product” he offers. Arent we supposed to be past darwinian evolution? I mean, we have laws, ethics, science, arts, how can we let the laws of the jungle dictate our economic system?

p.s
the CEO of sony, averages a salary of 20.000.000 $/year. Without bonuses. Suposably he is “better” than charlie fransis or richard feynman for that matter…

36

Lots of posts, but I will address some of the key points:

  1. Is the poor getting “poorer” a flaw? If one does not work hard or aim to improve conditions, how is it to improve? It is somewhat like sprinting. You can say you want to be the fastest in the world, but if you don’t train regularly, don’t get therapy, lift with machines, and the like, you probably are not going to get much faster. Now, would that mean that somehow the “system” of getting faster is flawed? No, it means you have to work to what you want to achieve. Earning money is only a means, not an end in itself. While earning money, to get to most means, is important, that is not always the case. If somebody enjoys leading a slow, easy life without having to work, they can. They may not be able to have luxory items, but they can still live fine. If one values have a luxorious life more than they do an “easy” or “lazy” one, they may find money as a way to get to that end. Simple as that. If the CEO of Sony makes a lot of money, does he get to his end goal and value in life? That’s for him to know. If Charlie can get to his end goal by helping everyone out here, producing some books and movies, consulting, etc. then does that make him any less than the CEO? No. Both can achieve their ends through different means. Capitalism does not necessarily means that the more money you have the better you are. It all depends on your ends.

  2. Objectivism/Ayn Rand:
    I have not said that there are some flaws in Objectivism (some revisionist Objectivists as you could call them have pointed some out). Does the fact it is not supported by much of academia make it any less? Hell no. Academia is known to be liberal and condemning of those who are the movers in the world, whether it is through business or whatever. On the other hand, if you look at academia that deals with economic and shall I say, more purely logical concepts (mathematics, etc.) you find more support for Objectivism and similar philosophies. While some of academia is furiously writing about how bad capitalism and the like is, they are accepting fat checks from endowments paid by capitalists (former alumn generally). What have most of the academia done? Well, not a whole lot. Who was the last “academic” (in the humanities of course) who helped construct a sky scraper? Who was the last one who helped bring new technology to us? Who was the last one who got the water flowing for all of us? None. They criticize and criticize. Much are like Ellsworth Toohey in the Fountainhead, if you have read it. Even though it was written decades ago, it is quite clear that he represents what much of academia is like today. Lorien, I would be interested in this “better reason” and what makes it more “reasonable.” Most of what I have read attacking the philosophy attack either Rand’s personal life or calls it social darwinism, which it is far from. If you read the Fountainhead, which deals the most with the social aspects of Objectivism, this is blatantly obvious considering the wealthiest in monetary value are in fact the altruists (Keating and Gail Wynand aka the Howard Roark who gave in), while Howard Roark had worked in a fricken granite quarry and designed small homes.

  3. Social Security and similar programs:
    They were doomed from the start. Just because a program last one or two generations does not mean it is a success. The system is based on taking from the young and giving to the old and continuing to do so. It fails to address the obvious problems we have today. The program was not successful in any way. The people who fueled it are not going to be getting a dime back. I have family that will not see a dime, even though they paid into it more than anybody who will be receiving. Is that fair that they are not allowed to decide to do what they want with their money? Is it fair that, although somebody may have had a hard time in life, they are allowed to take somebody else’s money without their permission to decide?

  4. Resources:
    Natural resources, obviously, are going to be limited. Funny enough, it is the capitalists who are often the ones developing new farming proceedures (sadly, the government often interferes and tells them who can grow what when) and technology to help feed people. It’s never been a capitalist country that was starving. Name a single laissez-faire capitalist country that has problems like starving and genocide. Hell, there are other “1st world” countries that have an average income below the US’s poverty line! Funny enough, those are the same countries that imploy the most socialistic policies. Socialist countries have a funny thing with unemployment, check out France and Germany. France has openly admitted failure of the 35 hour a week work schedule and has unemployment worse than the US had during the last recession! Name one socialistic policy in the US which has been a clear cut success, providing for all and hurting none. Name one capitalistic policy that has hurt the people of the United States.

  5. Collectivism aka altruism at a political and cultural scale:

Why did millions die in what I said were altruistic motives? Are you blind? Hitler murdered the Jews, Gypsies, and other groups of people because they were “hindering” progress of the Aryan race. He did it in “the name of Germany” not in the name of Hitler. Mao was similar, killing capitalists in numerous efforts because they were hindering “progress” to all. He did this “for the people” and had their support! Stalin took away the rights of many, essentially took over nations, and strove for more power continually. The worst type of altruist, if you believe in Objectivism, is the one who strives power. He is not satisfied with himself and what he can do with the world. He wants to control other people and take their rights away, generally in the name of a cause (whether it is Communism, Fascism, or whatever). Instead of worrying about themselves (egotists), they focus their lives on others. Their happiness does not come from within, but rather from others. Similarly, people who dedicate their lives to “others” are happy because they are helping those “poor African children” or “victims of capitalism.” Where does their happiness come from? Does their happiness come from say, something they have accomplished with themself? No, it is from supposedly saving someone else (if you can call that happiness) who they believe cannot do it themself.

The Real Deal: Do you think I actually care to bait you? It’s clear that I am presenting my thoughts. Is it necessary to have you hook something? My arguments have not been based on that.

Lorien: Inform me of some specific details of this criticism. Also, have you read the Fountainhead and if so, what are your thoughts on Roark’s thesis on altruists and egotists? Have you read the Anthem or Atlas Shrugged as well? Who is John Galt :wink: ?

Scarface: Social Security was doomed from the start. It is not a recent problem, it has just taken time to develop (as it always does), although I personally believe forcing people away from their money at gun point is wrong, but that is just me. You either give the money, or you go to jail. Not much of an option in my eyes. Funny enough, things like healthcare and the like are generally better taken care of by private, non-profit groups than it ever is by the government.

Epote: I will send you an email response when I stop being a lazy ass, but onto your post lol. Money is only a means, not an end in itself, so no $20million v.s. whatever Charlie has does not make either one better or worse in that sense. Which one is happy with themself? Which one has stuck to their values in life and not lived for others? Both maybe, I don’t know either on much of a personal level so I couldn’t say. This would take it away from any traditional social darwinistic ideology. From a monetary standpoint, maybe, but not from who is better. It is who achieved their ends.

37

[i]Are you kidding me? China has the world’s largest population and is barely getting by. They sure as hell be the fastest growing economy based on their size. On top of that, they had no wealth until they implemented capitalist ideas and philosophies. What’s the good of all the money if you can’t even practice your own religion (if you have it) or beliefs? What’s the point if you have laws forced upon you that restrict what you may say and write?

Care to explain how democracy is funny in practice? A small, laissez-faire government has rarely been around in the world. The times it was around had incredible economic boosts to the country. Hong Kong, the US pre-new deal, etc.[/i]

Who is they when you say “they had no wealth until…”? The Chinese people, the government? And please don’t give me this restrictions on what you can write stuff man, I mean give me a break. In the US you can’t think of saying September 11 was overdue, or joke about terrorism because the people are all so scared – of what? There’s no such thing. The American people should not be scared for themselves, but they should be scared of themselves for electing such leaders. Who can blame them for it, when they’re brainwashed anyway.

Here’s an example of why America is a funny democracy (one of many, I presume): In 2001, around October, an Australian boxer named Anthony Mundine was due to fight a World-title bout in the USA. A few weeks before the fight was due, he was interviewed on national (Australian) television and, since he is a Muslim, was asked to voice his opinion over the terrorist attacks of September 11 of that year. He said something like “If you look at the US government’s involvement in the Arab countries, its no surprise something like this happened. They deserved it.” The shitstorm created from his comments was pretty outrageous. He was banned from fighting in America indefinately (I’m sure that’s been lifted now - I hope so, for your case), and his fight was held in Germany. Now, explain this to me. Please. An anomaly, perhaps? A key concept of democracy is everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no?

Now you tell me what will happen if someone goes on US TV and says America deserved what happened in regards to the attacks. Instead of the public being rational, looking at the facts and saying “Shit, recently, our government has been doing stuff people don’t want them to do”, they’ll say “YEAH, fucking terrorist, fuck yeah, yeah, go sleep with Saddam, and fuck Osama, yeah, yeah, fuck yeah.” Now that’s the result of years of grinding them down, giving them wacked out speeches about protecting the World (from what?), and selling them this idea that its OK to enforce a government on another nation. Forcing government on someone else is in itself a violation of democratic principles. So, if you’re American, enjoy your nice big cup of propaganda tonight. Its OK if you are bro, I understand that you’re a bit brainwashed.

38

And what happens to the ones that cannot earn a regular living. Using your analogy. One can want to be the fastest. Get the therapy, training and the like. But, because of physical or genetic limitations, is unable to become one of the fastest.

What about the individual that is from poor background barely has a high school diploma and working 1-2 minimum wage jobs. On top of that the individual has a learning disability. The individual is doing the best they can with what they have; however, chances are that person will never break out the lower wage cycle. And may need help from time to time. Like epote stated “capitalism is very similar to evolution, the best survives based on the “product” he offers” What happens to the individual with the “product” that’s damaged beyond their control?

Is SS doomed because its taking funds from the current generation to pay the retired one or is it doomed because of mismanagement of funds? Taxes whether for SS, Federal, or State takes a share of wage earners current revenue and uses it to supply government services and the like -usually at least. In the case of SS, it uses the funds to protect workers and their families from income losses associated with old age, illness, unemployment, or death. Granted some individuals dislike the idea of helping those that are down on their luck or those that cannot help themselves. Nevertheless, taxes in general are an obligation a person has and if not paid will go to jail. Do I like everything that is done with my tax money? Hell No! But I understand the necessity of taxes in some form!

Now as far as funding SS, the late '90’s saw a surplus of funds. Some of surplus that could’ve been used to fund SS was given back in the form of tax returns. Granted the economy had a down turn, and tax cuts were necessary. However, If a surplus could’ve been reached in the '90’s its possible for it to be achieved currently or at some time in the future. However, it will take a fiscally responsible government!

39

The people, who the government is to serve.

Anybody JUSTIFYING the attacks of 9/11 is ridiculous. No doubt US foreign policy has been poor, but to justify an act of the murdering of thousands of innocents in the name of God is simply ludicrous. I have many more feeling about the mideast that I’ll keep out of this, but the area is full of collectivism and hate for everybody, including many of their own people.

Here’s an example of why America is a funny democracy (one of many, I presume)
Here you go. The topic was how is democracy funny. Now you are talking about modern day America, which is a mix of capitalism and socialism, sadly.

In 2001, around October, an Australian boxer named Anthony Mundine was due to fight a World-title bout in the USA. A few weeks before the fight was due, he was interviewed on national (Australian) television and, since he is a Muslim, was asked to voice his opinion over the terrorist attacks of September 11 of that year. He said something like “If you look at the US government’s involvement in the Arab countries, its no surprise something like this happened. They deserved it.” The shitstorm created from his comments was pretty outrageous. He was banned from fighting in America indefinately (I’m sure that’s been lifted now - I hope so, for your case), and his fight was held in Germany. Now, explain this to me. Please. An anomaly, perhaps? A key concept of democracy is everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no?

He was allowed to say it wasn’t he? Just because somebody says it does not mean the you have to accept or agree with it. The services he is offering (entertainment) are not wanted any longer, for reasons including this. Simple as that.

Now you tell me what will happen if someone goes on US TV and says America deserved what happened in regards to the attacks. Instead of the public being rational, looking at the facts and saying “Shit, recently, our government has been doing stuff people don’t want them to do”, they’ll say “YEAH, fucking terrorist, fuck yeah, yeah, go sleep with Saddam, and fuck Osama, yeah, yeah, fuck yeah.” Now that’s the result of years of grinding them down, giving them wacked out speeches about protecting the World (from what?), and selling them this idea that its OK to enforce a government on another nation. Forcing government on someone else is in itself a violation of democratic principles. So, if you’re American, enjoy your nice big cup of propaganda tonight. Its OK if you are bro, I understand that you’re a bit brainwashed.

lol Brainwashed? The fact you are justifying the terror in the middle east that is brought against people thousands of miles away, their neighbors, and their own PEOPLE is quite a bit of brainwashing right there. Anybody is open to criticism. Taking away the rights of innocents at gun (or bomb) point does not make your argument any more convincing. Also, since you are talking about forcing a government on somebody, would you agree that Saddam and the TALIBAN were forcing governments on their people? You could say the US took away this power from them, yes, I would agree. You could say it was done violently, yes. You must notice however who had no right prior to this and who now have them (the majority of the people). The fact you are somehow justifying Saddam, Osama, the TALIBAN, or anybody of the kind makes you just as bad or worse than the worst the US has done in the middle east.

40

It is estimated that by 1904 one in three people living in the cities in the USA was close to starving to death. For many of the urban poor, living in the city resulted in a decreased quality of life. With few city services to rely upon, the working class lived daily with overcrowding, inadequate water facilities, unpaved streets, and disease. Lagging far behind the middle class, working class wages provided little more than subsistence living and few, if any, opportunities for movement out of the city slums.