The far left

[Psycho Fox]

Okay from the thread A Letter to Congressman Kucinich I've noticed no one that posted really knew what Communism and Socialism was even those that were okay with it.

Since that thread already is way of topic I think a new thread is the best place to explore the far left.

First off the difference bettwen the 2. The dictonary terms that was given in the other threads was
socialism: any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

communism: a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. which tells you really nothing and it is not really that hard.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds (socialism). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (communism). Communism is like how the Native Americans opperated before europans appeard everything for the good of the tribe. Great if your a tribe but as JJWspider the idea that a doctor (that requires far more training) would be paid the same as the mailman down the street does not work. Which leaves Socialism, Socialism as the phrase to each according to his deeds says is that a doctor will get more but not only that but a good doctor will get even more. So how is this diffent from Capitalism? Well under Capitalism unless you run your own bussniess or get profit share or commission there is no incentive to do your job well except

a)the though of being fired

b)a Carrer path (if one exists)

c)pride in your own work.

The idea to socialism to to replace a)with more money this goes aginst the principles of capitalism since the owner is modivated to keep costs low and profits high. Taylorism is kind of a patch to capitalism to address this problem which started on assembly lines with the idea that the worker gets payed more if he does more this is where the idea of commissions comes from but it has a flaw it self it focuses on quantity instead of quality. One worker might might do 1 weld every 2 seconds but his work is sloppy while his coworker makes 1 weld every 4 seconds but his work is neat under Taylorism the first worker would get payed more even if his work has to be redone by someone else later. It also has a problem of over head since pay changes from day to day you need a way to see the quantity of work. Easy with a store but harder with other industries ie if WBA went Taylorism it would be even more screwed up since to know the quantity of work of each of the talent they would need to be watched like a hawk or like some compaines tried when Taylorism was all the rage, get the works to fill out what are you doing right now cards that waste time. So how does Socalism fix this well Socalism does not waste time worring about day to day work and focus on averages ie if you do better work eventully you will see more money you slack off eventully you will see less it is the idea the eventully people will get a rough idea about your performance via proformance reviews or what not.

There are huge problems with Socialism. Albert Einstein (http://jackson.comsvc.on.ca/kan/Einstein1.html) wrote an article in 1949 saying that while Socialism fixes the holes in Capitalism, it creates new ones. In the end of his article he states Socialism needs to address the following problems
how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and there with a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?which has yet to be answered the problem if for socialism to work democracy has to be a lot better then it is now since the both goes hand in hand. The goverment will have more power thus the people need more say in the goverment. Thus before even considering Socialism the democratic process needs to be reviewed and improved which is why right now true Socialism is only academic since it is missing they key element of true democracy.

[VashTheStampede]

Well said, but i am still against it. But thanks for clearing it up.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by VashTheStampede
Well said, but i am still against it. But thanks for clearing it up. Well I support it since Capitalism seems to be cracking. Corperate corruption/incompetence seems to be on the rise: BreX, Air Bus, Eatons, Nortel, Air Canada, Via Rail, Rogers, Can West and that doesn't even touch the recent round of American companies. The employer - employee gap grows: gone is job security, loyalty, respect and full career path. Capitalism at the expense of humanity African villiages being sold on the idea to switching from hand pump wells to having to pay for electric pumps but if they brake they have to pay to have them fixed. Rising health care costs in the US. Gone is logic we use Philips screws since the market is saturated with them even though they strip and socket screws don't, we use computers that have the reliablity of a FIAT even though better ones came earler. Workers rights, wadges and safty is only there becouse of unions a communist idea not capitalist. The enviorment is not taken into acount at all under capitalism at all. Good shows are snuffed infavour of the lowest common dominator.

Since Capitalism and Socialism have the same basic goal of dividing wealth based on work (Socialism directly and Capitalism through the theory that in modern Capitalism if you work harder you will get more through profit sharding which doesn't always work ie Enron) I don't see a problem with Socialism, it just removed profit from the system so for example in the relm of brodcasting there would be nothing but public broadcasting before you complain remeber Monty Python came from public brodcasting so it does not stifle creativity and there are a number of people that say working in public brodcasting is alot nicer then working in the private sector.

Yet Socialism still has the problem the Einstein mentions so maybe a mix would be better more public brodcasting and such forcing the private sector to comptete with a competitor thats focus is quality not profit.

[randomguy]

Honestly, I don't believe any of them can work. Communism and Socialism are highly corruptable and almost inevitably totalitarian. Capitalism is degredation and also problematic. Call me a pessemist, but I don't believe any government form of human invention can last for very long. Capitalism has all the drawbacks of Socialism and Communism, they simply take longer to manifest themselves.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by randomguy
Honestly, I don't believe any of them can work. Communism and Socialism are highly corruptable and almost inevitably totalitarian. Capitalism is degredation and also problematic. Call me a pessemist, but I don't believe any government form of human invention can last for very long. Capitalism has all the drawbacks of Socialism and Communism, they simply take longer to manifest themselves. Well the goal of modern socialism (note Socialism is still academic and never been really been tryed but some people have flowen non Socialist goverment under the name of Socialism.) is to remove goverment bodies and replace them with direct democracy thus fixing the problems Einstein stated. Meaning through out the society every persons opinon is worth just as much as the next thus in the workplace there is no boss, coworkers get togther in a democratic pact same with local and federal levels the people that are effected vote on what they want done thus getting around problem USSR,China and Cuba has and in a much lesser extent the west. This of course takes in the theory that eveyone is working in the best intrest of their area,workplace,ect

There is also the free acess dream Socailist has which is, eventully with the better effecincy of production under Socalism, stockpiles would reach a level where every citizen can have more then they could possibly want thus the elimination of the need for money (kinda like Star Trek) and the theory is that by then Socalism would have made work enjoyable enough for people to still keep working. This is just a theory within socialism not supported by all Socialist.

[Psycho Fox]

I though I'd post the 2 reasons why I like Socialism.

One Capitalism rewards selfishness for example say someone had a stockpile bottled water at ground zero during 9/11 and no one else did that person would be rewarded with higher quality of life for charging high prices for it. On the flip side if the person gave it away the person would be punished with a lower quality of life as he had to pay for that water.

If the US was Classical Socalist (with market) during 9/11 the person with the water would be payed for giving access to the water to the emergency crews and his prices would be only based on avalibly of water to demand not what the market will bear that Capitalism is. If the US was Modern Socalist (no market) there is no money. The emergency crews can take as many as they want and the guy giving the water can get as many as he wants from his supplier plus his Quality of Life remans the same as he still has access to anything he wants.

Second if I was a factory worker under Capitalism I will have to fight anything that cuts my work since it could lead to my being let go. Under Socialism I would welcome it since it would free my time to do other things. This is a big plus since I don't think God put us here to be a slave to capitalism and work most of our lives with Socialism we can actully work to give us more time to do more things we like doing plus I wouldn't be labled by my job I could easly do many job a day if I so choose or keep changing job getting a taste of everything.

These are the biggest reason I like the idea of Socialism.

[VashTheStampede]

It is a great theory to debate in college but it is not practical and could never work. Sorry, but it's true.

[Sheamon]

Corperate corruption/incompetence seems to be on the rise: BreX, Air Bus, Eatons, Nortel, Air Canada, Via Rail, Rogers, Can West and that doesn't even touch the recent round of American companies.

Is it on the rise, or is reporting it on the rise? Even with all the Enrons and Worldcoms, over 99% of companies out there aren't these corrupt, evil corporations that the left loves to portray them as. And of course it also comes down to simple reporting. The bad is always interesting. The good isn't. Obviously the bad is always more reported than the good, making it look like things are more corrupt than they really are.

And you know what? Even if there was a lot of corruptness in corporations, what do you expect? Look at Clinton! He lies, commits treason, embarresses the country, screws his own party over, etc... and he gets away scott free! What kind of example does that set?


The employer - employee gap grows: gone is job security, loyalty, respect and full career path.

Again, you're taking what happens with a small percentage of the corporations out there with massive layoffs and say everyone does it. And what do you expect during a recession? These things happen. When the economy becomes good again, job security will be better.


Rising health care costs in the US.

Which is due to government intervention. With the advent of health care, which is not a concept of capitalism (therefore it can't be blamed on capitalism) people seek more medical attention than they actually need. People go to see doctors with things as tepid as headaches. The doctors are in more demand because of this, thus the costs rise. Eliminate health care, and the prices drop.

Same thing with prescription drugs. Doing all these ridiculous government programs for prescription drugs will drive the prices even higher. People live much, much longer than they used to. Why? Because of advances made by things like prescription drugs. With the longer life span comes the higher cost of drugs, which cost quite a lot to develop. Thats life. You don't have to pay if you don't want to. You simply won't live as long, thats all.


The enviorment is not taken into acount at all under capitalism at all.

It isn't? I think you take what the tree huggers say too seriously. Take trees for example. There are more trees in this country than there have been for centuries. Why? Because of the lumber industry. The lumber industy needs trees, so it plants multiple trees for each one it cuts down. Because of that, there are more trees in the US than there have been since the country was founded. The same thing will eventually happen when it comes to power. Right now oil is still plentiful. There's no reason to seek alternative energy sources because there's still a good supply of it on this planet. When the oil eventually runs out, the oil industries will need another way to make money. They'll invest in alternative energy sources that aren't as harmful to the environment as oil. Thus, capitalism will sort things out eventually. But you can't expect the entire populace to simply abandon oil. Even your beloved socialist countries use it.


Good shows are snuffed infavour of the lowest common dominator

Thats only your opinion. TV is a business too. The shows with the largest audience gets the highest advertising rates and makes the most money. You might disagree with what the majority thinks, but thats the way things go. As simple as that.


Since Capitalism and Socialism have the same basic goal of dividing wealth based on work (Socialism directly and Capitalism through the theory that in modern Capitalism if you work harder you will get more through profit sharding which doesn't always work ie Enron) I don't see a problem with Socialism, it just removed profit from the system so for example in the relm of brodcasting there would be nothing but public broadcasting before you complain remeber Monty Python came from public brodcasting so it does not stifle creativity and there are a number of people that say working in public brodcasting is alot nicer then working in the private sector.


You're wrong again. Do you know why the entertainment industry is so big in this country? Because it makes TONS of money. There is tons of insentive to do creative things in the entertainment industry because they're the thing everyone pays attention to, and thus buy more, watch more, etc...which makes them the most money. The unoriginal and lame shows/concepts/etc... lose money. Take the WWF for example. Why did the WWF become so great a few years ago with the attitude era? Because Vince's money making power was reduced because the WCW was kicking its ass. Thus, more work went into making the WWF better, and it did, because of capitalistic ideals.

Heck, look at Toonami and Adult Swim. Do you know why Cowboy Bebop is shown? Do you know why Dragonball Z is shown? Not because they're good shows. Because they're the shows that will make CN the most money. They result in CN getting the best profit, which means more money is given to the employees of the company from every level, and the company has more money to invest in new shows. Remove capitalism and kiss goodbye to Toonami and Adult Swim, probably the entire channel as well.

The pursuit of money through a capitalistic system is why this country is the greatest in the world. Why is the entertainment industry so big? Because it makes money. Why is public health so good in this country? Because people know by becoming doctors, or investing in medicine, etc... they'll make more money. The pursuit of money spurns people on.

And once again you're accepting the exception as the norm. Yes, Monty Python was a good show. But can you list more good shows that came from public broadcasting than private? No, you can't. Because private is better.



Yet Socialism still has the problem the Einstein mentions so maybe a mix would be better more public brodcasting and such forcing the private sector to comptete with a competitor thats focus is quality not profit.

The focus is quality. The higher the quality of the product, the more profit it makes. Thus, the company makes more money. Remove the insentive to make a profit and the quality suffers. I already went over this.



One Capitalism rewards selfishness for example

Its not selfishness, its self-preservation. I know this may be hard for you to accept, but people put the well being of themselves first, their family second, and everyone else third. Socialism won't fix this, its basic human nature. You commit yourself to being a better worker, educating yourself better, etc... you'll get a better job, will be able to advance in your career easily, and most importantly, make more money. Thats basic human nature. Money is what spurs it on.


.
These are the biggest reason I like the idea of Socialism. Etc...

I see where you're coming from, everyone wants a utopian soceity. The problem is socialism won't do it any better than capitalism. This country isn't so rich and powerful by accident. Its because of capitalism. Capitalism spurns on further advances in technology and makes life better. When you can show me the countries with perfect socialist systems that are richer and more powerful than the US, with a better standard of life, then maybe that'll change things.

[Psycho Fox]

VashTheStampede
It is a great theory to debate in college but it is not practical and could never work. Sorry, but it's true.The Native Americans had a crude Socalist system before europeans came so why can't a more modern version work with the modern times?


Originally posted by Sheamon

Is it on the rise, or is reporting it on the rise? Even with all the Enrons and Worldcoms, over 99% of companies out there aren't these corrupt, evil corporations that the left loves to portray them as. And of course it also comes down to simple reporting. The bad is always interesting. The good isn't. Obviously the bad is always more reported than the good, making it look like things are more corrupt than they really are.It shouldn't happen these guys are steeling money and they act like it is okay. They are hurting society and they are the ones at the helm of the economy.


And you know what? Even if there was a lot of corruptness in corporations, what do you expect? Look at Clinton! He lies, commits treason, embarresses the country, screws his own party over, etc... and he gets away scott free! What kind of example does that set?
Never said I supported Clinton. I think both the right and left are wrong



Again, you're taking what happens with a small percentage of the corporations out there with massive layoffs and say everyone does it. And what do you expect during a recession? These things happen. When the economy becomes good again, job security will be better.
I'm not talking about that I'm talking about bosses that don't lissen to the people lower on the chain that is why I like the Socalist idea of no bosses or leaders



Which is due to government intervention. With the advent of health care, which is not a concept of capitalism (therefore it can't be blamed on capitalism) people seek more medical attention than they actually need. People go to see doctors with things as tepid as headaches. The doctors are in more demand because of this, thus the costs rise. Eliminate health care, and the prices drop.Eliminate health care and some people will have to do with out, the capitalist idea is if you can't make them money then they don't want to have anything do do with you.



It isn't? I think you take what the tree huggers say too seriously. Take trees for example. There are more trees in this country than there have been for centuries. Why? Because of the lumber industry. The lumber industy needs trees, so it plants multiple trees for each one it cuts down. Because of that, there are more trees in the US than there have been since the country was founded. The same thing will eventually happen when it comes to power. Right now oil is still plentiful. There's no reason to seek alternative energy sources because there's still a good supply of it on this planet. When the oil eventually runs out, the oil industries will need another way to make money. They'll invest in alternative energy sources that aren't as harmful to the environment as oil. Thus, capitalism will sort things out eventually. But you can't expect the entire populace to simply abandon oil. Even your beloved socialist countries use it.
There is no socialist countries yet Cuba,China ect are not socialist. Go to a major city during rush hour and you see smog and there is nothing capitalism can do about it. We trow away tons of garbabe most which is non really needed. Do you think a factory owner cares if people die becouse of the toxic waste his factory spews? no becouse it is cheaper then cleaning it up. Ford proved this when there had documents that they made unsafe care unpurpose becoues it was cheaper then the estimated pay outs they would make in law suits.



Thats only your opinion. TV is a business too. The shows with the largest audience gets the highest advertising rates and makes the most money. You might disagree with what the majority thinks, but thats the way things go. As simple as that.

You're wrong again. Do you know why the entertainment industry is so big in this country? Because it makes TONS of money. There is tons of insentive to do creative things in the entertainment industry because they're the thing everyone pays attention to, and thus buy more, watch more, etc...which makes them the most money. The unoriginal and lame shows/concepts/etc... lose money. Take the WWF for example. Why did the WWF become so great a few years ago with the attitude era? Because Vince's money making power was reduced because the WCW was kicking its ass. Thus, more work went into making the WWF better, and it did, because of capitalistic ideals.
Explain the fall of WBA then? under socalism there is no one to tell artist what to do they just be artist for example under socalism odds are high we would see more TTA,A! and others since people want to see them even if under a capitalism there was no profit to be made.


Heck, look at Toonami and Adult Swim. Do you know why Cowboy Bebop is shown? Do you know why Dragonball Z is shown? Not because they're good shows. Because they're the shows that will make CN the most money. They result in CN getting the best profit, which means more money is given to the employees of the company from every level, and the company has more money to invest in new shows. Remove capitalism and kiss goodbye to Toonami and Adult Swim, probably the entire channel as well.Under Socalism if the aritist and fans want it they get it there is no one to tell them what and what no to do.


The pursuit of money through a capitalistic system is why this country is the greatest in the world. Why is the entertainment industry so big? Because it makes money. Why is public health so good in this country? Because people know by becoming doctors, or investing in medicine, etc... they'll make more money. The pursuit of money spurns people on.But look at how much overhead is needed, accountant, bosses, supervisors and the list goes on and on under socalism most of the jobs instantly disaper there is no money so how needs an accountant, no leader no bosses or supervisors. People are free to make advance and don't have to answer to anyone except their peers.


And once again you're accepting the exception as the norm. Yes, Monty Python was a good show. But can you list more good shows that came from public broadcasting than private? No, you can't. Because private is better.That is becouse capitalism makes it hard. Take a look at the internet take a look at the amount of good free content, under socalism they can be on the air easily



The focus is quality. The higher the quality of the product, the more profit it makes. Thus, the company makes more money. Remove the insentive to make a profit and the quality suffers. I already went over this.Wrong, you can only stay in bussniess as long as there is a demand if a company made a car that can last 100 years it would go out of business since there would be no repeat customers since it would take 100 years before they need a new one. A example is the philips screw it strips easily but the Robeson socket head doesn't so why is most of the screws philips? becouse Philips saturated the market many years ago



Its not selfishness, its self-preservation. I know this may be hard for you to accept, but people put the well being of themselves first, their family second, and everyone else third. Socialism won't fix this, its basic human nature. You commit yourself to being a better worker, educating yourself better, etc... you'll get a better job, will be able to advance in your career easily, and most importantly, make more money. Thats basic human nature. Money is what spurs it on.That is the only way any one can survive capitalism. Look at animals that stay in pacts they all look out for each other look at native americans they did the same. If all you had to do is give a little bit into the community and you don't have to be stuck in a rut plus you can also work on things you enjoy most people wouldn't mind looking out for each other there would be no reason not to.



I see where you're coming from, everyone wants a utopian soceity. The problem is socialism won't do it any better than capitalism. This country isn't so rich and powerful by accident. Its because of capitalism. Capitalism spurns on further advances in technology and makes life better. When you can show me the countries with perfect socialist systems that are richer and more powerful than the US, with a better standard of life, then maybe that'll change things. I keep telling you look at Native America before we came they looked out for each other and had a higher average quality of life. Look at Capitalism look at how even though the UN stated that there is 15% more food then needed to feed every human on the face of the earth most go without since they can't afford it. People waste their lives away on the streets with no future even the working class have to spend most of our time slaving in the name of capitalism. Think about it under Socalism each person would have more time as every person can have work thus people can spend more time advancing technology.

Socalism does make sence animals do it and human is an animal thus we can do it.

[VashTheStampede]

The Native Americans lived in small tribes not big cities. THey had Primitive Technology not todays advanced tech. You can not use the Indians as an example that socialism can work, totally diferent time period and a completely different situation.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by VashTheStampede
The Native Americans lived in small tribes not big cities. THey had Primitive Technology not todays advanced tech. You can not use the Indians as an example that socialism can work, totally diferent time period and a completely different situation. What is the diffence? They still looked out for each other they didn't slack off and not pitch in. A moderen Socalist society would work the same way but only better. Advance technology under socalism can reduce the amoung of hard labour we need to do in a week where under Capitalism Advance technology either increses production or means less workers. when people understand that this way there is a possiblity they might only have to work 2 days a week instead of the 5 I'm sure people will grow to like the idea. Okay so your Quality of Life is not much higher then anyone elses but you still have a DVD player, Computer and anything else you want and they actully have the time to enjoy it and have less stress at work. Think what robots can do to a Socalist society? Possibly elemenate hard work all together? could be but what about under Captalism putting people out of work and driving up poverty.

[Sheamon]

The Native Americans had a crude Socalist system before europeans came so why can't a more modern version work with the modern times?

Because seperate Native American tribes isn't the same as a country with 300 million citizens.



It shouldn't happen these guys are steeling money and they act like it is okay. They are hurting society and they are the ones at the helm of the economy.

Well obviously it shouldn't happen! Murder should never happen! But it does. These things are rare, and get glorified because its always more advantageous for media outlets to report on the negative. You think that in a socialist society, every single example of corruption from up top would never occur?



Never said I supported Clinton. I think both the right and left are wrong

You supporting Clinton or not has nothing to do with it. I just explained to you why something like this happened. Because society clearly didn't care when the leader of the country was doing things just as bad. Thats a society problem, not an economic one. Socialism won't fix it.


Eliminate health care and some people will have to do with out, the capitalist idea is if you can't make them money then they don't want to have anything do do with you.

Really? Things seemed to have gone pretty good before health care came in and screwed things even further.

But before I go any further I'd like to know more about how the health care system would work in a socialistic society. I don't wanna start ranting about stuff that I might be off on. :p



There is no socialist countries yet Cuba,China ect are not socialist.

If there are no socialist countries then that goes a long way explaining why. No one supports it!


Go to a major city during rush hour and you see smog and there is nothing capitalism can do about it. We trow away tons of garbabe most which is non really needed. Do you think a factory owner cares if people die becouse of the toxic waste his factory spews? no becouse it is cheaper then cleaning it up. Ford proved this when there had documents that they made unsafe care unpurpose becoues it was cheaper then the estimated pay outs they would make in law suits.

Wow, you really know how to spew the typical environmentalist propaganda. I already explained to you about this. There is smog in cities because it comes out of the exhaust of cars. Cars are used because people WANT to use them. It has nothing to do with capitalism, unless of course cars are banned in your perfect socialistic society.



Under Socalism if the aritist and fans want it they get it there is no one to tell them what and what no to do.


And who do they get it from? God? Magic pixie fairies? Shows are bankrolled by companies. Companies exist to make money for its employees. Remove them in your socialist society and entertainment dissappears.


But look at how much overhead is needed, accountant, bosses, supervisors and the list goes on and on under socalism most of the jobs instantly disaper there is no money so how needs an accountant, no leader no bosses or supervisors. People are free to make advance and don't have to answer to anyone except their peers.

Except by eliminating those bosses, accountants, etc... you eliminate a lot of jobs. Much more than all the layoffs in this recession combined. So you mean to tell me you want even more people to be poor? I didn't know that was a socialist ideal!



That is becouse capitalism makes it hard. Take a look at the internet take a look at the amount of good free content, under socalism they can be on the air easily

If there wasn't capitalism, there'd be no such thing as the internet. One of many advances spurned on by the almighty dollar.



Wrong, you can only stay in bussniess as long as there is a demand if a company made a car that can last 100 years it would go out of business since there would be no repeat customers since it would take 100 years before they need a new one

What the hell are you talking about?! We're not in a position where a car could last for 100 years. When we are, then you can talk about that kinda stuff.



I keep telling you look at Native America before we came they looked out for each other and had a higher average quality of life. Look at Capitalism look at how even though the UN stated that there is 15% more food then needed to feed every human on the face of the earth most go without since they can't afford it. People waste their lives away on the streets with no future even the working class have to spend most of our time slaving in the name of capitalism. Think about it under Socalism each person would have more time as every person can have work thus people can spend more time advancing technology.


The problem is you have no realistic examples where socialism is better than capitalism. Give us a modern example of a country that has atleast 300 million citizens and is as successful as the US. When you do, we have a meaningful argument. All you have now is ideals. Capitalism has proved itself over the past 200+ years.


What is the diffence? They still looked out for each other they didn't slack off and not pitch in. A moderen Socalist society would work the same way but only better. Advance technology under socalism can reduce the amoung of hard labour we need to do in a week where under Capitalism Advance technology either increses production or means less workers.

Except socialism wouldn't create advanced technology, that is a biproduct of capitalism.


The problem with your entire argument is that its all ideals written on paper. Nothing that has been proven to work on a gigantic scale. You can't compare native american tribes to a country like the US because native americans lived in small tribes seperate from other tribes. The US is a country of 300 million citizens living on a gigantic landmass. Socialism might work in a small society, but it won't in one as large as ours.

...and when you talk about starving people, etc... what does that have to do with capitalism? You'll have a hard enough time getting a country as large as the US to become socialist, but the entire world? Thats the only way your ideals would work.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Sheamon


Because seperate Native American tribes isn't the same as a country with 300 million citizens.

But technology has evolved so has the socialist ideas.



But before I go any further I'd like to know more about how the health care system would work in a socialistic society. I don't wanna start ranting about stuff that I might be off on. :pOkay I'm going by Modern Socialist but it would mean that you go to the hospital or clinic what ever and they treat you. There is no money just like in Star Trek or the Native Americans before the europans. You see a Doctar that is a doctar becouse he or she likes helping people. It is the idea of exapanding the idea of family to include the whole system so just like you would help a family memeber you would help your fellow man. This is proven by the amount of volunteers during 9/11 but it is taken that spirt and applying it to preventing serious problems in health and the idea that if one person is ill other can become ill to.



If there are no socialist countries then that goes a long way explaining why. No one supports it!People support it, it is just one people keep mistaking it for Communism and two it is hard to implement. Socalism belives in no leader or violence so a radical revolt towards it is next to impossible. People would just have to want it but there are parties like the World Socialist Movement



Wow, you really know how to spew the typical environmentalist propaganda. I already explained to you about this. There is smog in cities because it comes out of the exhaust of cars. Cars are used because people WANT to use them. It has nothing to do with capitalism, unless of course cars are banned in your perfect socialistic society.No cars are not banned but in a perfect socialist society you would only have to wait 15mins for public transit and cars would be made to last plus be environmentally freindy with no cost to the consumer so they can get one that does not pollute for free or one that does. Socialist belive with everything else equal people would choose the enviormenatlly freindly one.



And who do they get it from? God? Magic pixie fairies? Shows are bankrolled by companies. Companies exist to make money for its employees. Remove them in your socialist society and entertainment dissappears.This is a moneyless society like Star Trek. People right now make entertiament for free and since Socalism aims to give people more free time after work anyone can take a shot at providing content since there is no money they don't need to be bankrolled since everything is free



Except by eliminating those bosses, accountants, etc... you eliminate a lot of jobs. Much more than all the layoffs in this recession combined. So you mean to tell me you want even more people to be poor? I didn't know that was a socialist ideal!The ideal is to move them plus the unemployed and allow them to work where they wish to work for as long as they wish to work. Meaning you can be a assembly line worker one week and a farmer the next. The idea is also to use technology to free up people time so there is not as much hard work that needs to be done or it is much easier to do.



If there wasn't capitalism, there'd be no such thing as the internet. One of many advances spurned on by the almighty dollar.There are people who just invent for the helping man kind or getting fame or just becouse they want a hobby. The PC was invented for fun so there is no reason not to think under Socalism inventions can keep on comming.


What the hell are you talking about?! We're not in a position where a car could last for 100 years. When we are, then you can talk about that kinda stuff.But you see my point under capitalism no effort would ever be made to increase the life span of a product to such an extent under Socialism there could be.



The problem is you have no realistic examples where socialism is better than capitalism. Give us a modern example of a country that has atleast 300 million citizens and is as successful as the US. When you do, we have a meaningful argument. All you have now is ideals. Capitalism has proved itself over the past 200+ years.Star Trek? but really Democracy was laughed at till the US embrased it same with Socalism.


Except socialism wouldn't create advanced technology, that is a biproduct of capitalism.Again the PC was invented for fun, capitalism was not responsable



The problem with your entire argument is that its all ideals written on paper. Nothing that has been proven to work on a gigantic scale. You can't compare native american tribes to a country like the US because native americans lived in small tribes seperate from other tribes. The US is a country of 300 million citizens living on a gigantic landmass. Socialism might work in a small society, but it won't in one as large as ours.Just becouse it is never been done doesn't mean it can't be done if we took that attitude we would have never landed a man on the moon.


...and when you talk about starving people, etc... what does that have to do with capitalism? You'll have a hard enough time getting a country as large as the US to become socialist, but the entire world? Thats the only way your ideals would work. It is the goal of Socalist movement to turn most of the world toward socalism and as for starving people there is starving people in the US and Capitalism actully lowered the quality of life in Africa considerable and now Africa has numerous crisis under capitalism then they had before.

[VashTheStampede]

There is no money just like in Star Trek
Are you really trying to use Star Trek as an example?

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by VashTheStampede

Are you really trying to use Star Trek as an example? Well yhea there is nothing really to give a modern example so why not. It is a idea that if animals like the Beaver do it and the Native Americans did it we can do it. Yes there is no good example but we shot for the moon and put down a deadline when we didn't even know if it was even possible. So why not aim for Socialism? Beavers can build structures under a socilist model so are they really smarter then us? can they do it and we can't?

[VashTheStampede]

Now it's beavers? They can do it because they are animals. With a primitive mind.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by VashTheStampede
Now it's beavers? They can do it because they are animals. With a primitive mind. Primitive mind huh? well with those primitive mind there can create dams that humans need hi-exlosives to distroy and man can't build dams any more effecently with the materials available to the beaver. We basicly are an animal and this is what Einstein was getting at. Like the beaver we are social and want to help everyone in that social group thus has a natural strong work ethic. Before capitalism we worked for no reason it just benifited everyone and even under capitalism people work for no reason but to benifit everyone these are the people that volunteer their time to help their community or to create free entertainment. As I said the PC was invented for fun. It has been pointed out by alot of people that we are more like the beaver then apes or monkeys. We don't trow our droping at each other, like the beaver most try and keep our homes neat. We change our enviorment to meet our needs, like the beaver. Thus why not try and be more like them?

The theory scientist have that belive in socalism, is capitalism made us lazy (take a look at people that was born with a silver spoon in their mouth and don't want to do a days work) thus without it we would once agin have a strong work ethic like the beaver.

[Psycho Fox]

Getting back on track. This comic (http://www.worldsocialism.org/Dream%20On.jpg) explains why many Socalist don't think the fact there is no moderen example is releven. At one time there was no example of capitalism and people probably laughed at the idea but someone had to give it a wirl.

And here (http://www.worldsocialism.org/Economics_.jpg) is one explaning their beef with money.

[Squall]

Socialism, and its cousin, Communism, are complete failures. Capitalism, like any other form of Human society, has its problems, but it's the only form of Human society that has ever successfully worked.

Example #1: The U.S. vs. the Soviet Union. For 50 years these two superpowers fought a Cold War, convinced that the day would come when they would have to take up arms against each other in a real war. But guess what happened? In the end, all the U.S. had to do was outspend the Soviet Union, and then watch as the Soviet Union collapse from within trying to keep up.

Example #2: The printing press, the cotton gin, the car, the airplane, the TV, the PC, the Internet... the vast majority of the modern world's inventions were only made possible in countries where Capitalism thrived. There are a few exceptions, of course (as in all things in life), but that's the reality of the modern world.

God bless the USA! God bless Capitalism! :D

[VashTheStampede]

USA! USA! USA!

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Squall
Socialism, and its cousin, Communism, are complete failures. Capitalism, like any other form of Human society, has its problems, but it's the only form of Human society that has ever successfully worked.Socialism is not a complete failure. Take Native America Socaialism was able to feed everyone. Every tribe that used Socalism worked everyone had what they needed. Capitalism has its pit falls and Socalist Aliens would probably think we never discovered democracy. Think about is a capitalist who has wealth of $10 billion dollars worked 50,000 times harder than the person who has worked all their life to (maybe) own a home and little else? Is that wealthy person's effort, skill, knowledge and time, all combined are worth 50,000 times more than most other people's? Does the person on the street deserve to die on the street so this capitalist can have more then most?

Take the Ducktales ep where Scrooge brings Capitalism to that tribe. Notice how screwed up they get just becouse someone had twise as much wealth as everyone else.



Example #1: The U.S. vs. the Soviet Union. For 50 years these two superpowers fought a Cold War, convinced that the day would come when they would have to take up arms against each other in a real war. But guess what happened? In the end, all the U.S. had to do was outspend the Soviet Union, and then watch as the Soviet Union collapse from within trying to keep up.Communism is the bastered child of Socilism. Socilism is completly diffent then what the Soviet Union was as with all communist nations since they were effect state Capitalism the factory in Russia was not owned by the people working there it was owned by the state and the state distrabuted wealth to the people so they can buy what they need.



Example #2: The printing press, the cotton gin, the car, the airplane, the TV, the PC, the Internet... the vast majority of the modern world's inventions were only made possible in countries where Capitalism thrived. There are a few exceptions, of course (as in all things in life), but that's the reality of the modern world.The PC was invented for fun, no one thought it would make any money including the inventors but nerds still built them for their own use and to be the king of nerds. The Typewriter was invented for the same reason there are bright people that for some reason want to invent and don't care about any monetary gains. Plus Capitalism has turned those reliable brilliant computers into unrelable pieces of crap becouse of marketing. Marketing tells people you don't want a Amiga that can do the same job a PC but does not crash and runs more smoothly plus can do multipul things at once with more ease. Why becouse Amigas were build too good a 10 year old Amiga can do the job of a moderen PC thus Commadore had problems getting Amiga users to buy new ones. Instead we use Windows that will go down in history as the worst Operation System in the world but comsumers use it why becouse marketing tells you it is better. Technology has actully suffered under Capitalism and the only reason these things were invented under Capitalism is its currently every where if Socalism was everywhere these things would still be here.



God bless the USA! God bless Capitalism! :D If God likes Capitalism so much then why did Jesus come to the Roman Empire to set the Capitalist world then strait yet never did it for the Socialist world? could it be that the Socialist world didn't need to be set strait since it didn't have as many problems?

[VashTheStampede]

If God likes Capitalism so much then why did Jesus come to the Roman Empire to set the Capitalist world then strait yet never did it for the Socialist world? could it be that the Socialist world didn't need to be set strait since it didn't have as many problems?
I think Bible scholars might dispute the whole Jesus was sent to set the capitalists straight. And the Roman Empire wasn't a capitalist empire.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by VashTheStampede

I think Bible scholars might dispute the whole Jesus was sent to set the capitalists straight. And the Roman Empire wasn't a capitalist empire. Granted but Capitalism hasn't really fixed any of Romes problems that Socalism already has. Rome had poverty US has poverty, Rome had the lazy super rich US has lazy super rich.

I just don't see the point of Capitalism. Let take a farmer (lets call him farmer John) and a person on a hill with a well next to the farm (lets call him Jack and his wife Jill) Now under the basic idea of Capitalism Farmer John makes food which is a good which can be sold for capital which Jack and Jill can buy when they sell water for money which Farmer John can buy. But what if Farmer John digs a well of his own thus does not need to buy as much water now there is no need to give as much wealth to Jack in Jill thus they can't buy as much of Farmers John's food thus Farmer John doesn't make as much either but his expensive are lower anyway due to his well. That is the idea of Capitalism to solve the problem of scarcity which is why when ever the is abundance in a Capitalist system it is bad thing. Socilism is the opposite. If they all were Socalist Jack and Jill would work supplying Farmer John with water in excange for Farmer John working to supply them with food thus if Farmer John wants a well Jack and Jill can build him one but their agreement still stands of they get food Farmer John doesn't need and Farmer John gets water Jack and Jill doesn't need. So in a larger Socialist system the coal miner works so the power plant has an abundance of fule so there is a abundance of electricity so when the miner goes home he can turn on his TV and watch cartoons since the abundance of electricity powers his house and the brodcaster's transmitter. It is changing our mind set to realize we are all interconnected and in our best intrest to work as a team.

[Squall]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
...is a capitalist who has wealth of $10 billion dollars worked 50,000 times harder than the person who has worked all their life to (maybe) own a home and little else? Is that wealthy person's effort, skill, knowledge and time, all combined are worth 50,000 times more than most other people's?

You're assuming that every person's effort is equal. For example, some people have knowledge that is much more useful than simple manual labor. Why go to college and study hard for 5 years to become an Engineer, Doctor, or Lawyer if there is nothing extra to be gained for your efforts? You want to better yourself and all of humanity, etc., of course, but face it -- everyone works hard to learn skills because they have the incentive of earning more money for their work if they learn these skills. Take that incentive away, and most people would say, "Well, if I'm going to get paid just as little to be a scientist as I would to be a janitor, then I might as well be a janitor. Why work harder for the same pay?" This by itself will kill Socialism every time.


Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Communism is the bastered child of Socilism. Socilism is completly diffent then what the Soviet Union was as with all communist nations since they were effect state Capitalism the factory in Russia was not owned by the people working there it was owned by the state and the state distrabuted wealth to the people so they can buy what they need.

The Soviet Union and its satellite states did indeed begin as "ideal Socialist states." In the so-called ideal Socialist state, the people ARE the state, so the state uses this claim to take all private property from its citizens (this includes land, wealth, and intellectual property). Of course, the people can never truly BE the state; it can only represent them. When the Soviet Union and its satellite states realized that they could never keep up with the free-market republican states that they were competing against in the World economy, they were forced to adopt "state Capitalism" strategies just to keep from economically collapsing in on themselves.

As for the Native Americans, they may indeed have survived for a long time within their Socialist societies, but that's just it -- they survived, but never thrived. Technological innovation was nonexistant among the Native American tribes.


Originally posted by Psycho Fox
The PC was invented for fun, no one thought it would make any money including the inventors but nerds still built them for their own use and to be the king of nerds. The Typewriter was invented for the same reason there are bright people that for some reason want to invent and don't care about any monetary gains. Plus Capitalism has turned those reliable brilliant computers into unrelable pieces of crap becouse of marketing. Marketing tells people you don't want a Amiga that can do the same job a PC but does not crash and runs more smoothly plus can do multipul things at once with more ease. Why becouse Amigas were build too good a 10 year old Amiga can do the job of a moderen PC thus Commadore had problems getting Amiga users to buy new ones. Instead we use Windows that will go down in history as the worst Operation System in the world but comsumers use it why becouse marketing tells you it is better. Technology has actully suffered under Capitalism and the only reason these things were invented under Capitalism is its currently every where if Socalism was everywhere these things would still be here...

I think that you misunderstand how economics works. It's not just products, labor, and raw materials that are worth money; ideas, opportunity, and even time itself is worth money. Capitalism realizes that not all ideas and opportunities are equal; indeed, some ideas and opportunities are worth MUCH more than others. Socialism, with its "each gives according to their ability, each recieves according to their need" mantra, completely ignores this obvious fact. Furthermore, Capitalism also realizes that the value of a person's skills, just like the value of products produced, are determined by supply and demand. The more rare a person's skills are, and the more in demand these skills are, the more money a person can charge for using their skills to further someone else's goals. (And 'someone else' can be anything from using your skills to further a company's profits, to using your skills to please a customer. Either way, you'll be able to earn money for your work.)

As for this PC discussion... When the PC was revealed as the latest "nerd" invention in the 1970's, the corporate giant IBM scoffed at the idea of PCs being ideal to mass produce for the home consumer, and stuck to the status quo of making mainframes and supercomputers for the government and large companies. In essence, IBM had deteriorated from its capitalist roots into a pseudo-socialist environment that refused to recognize new and interesting ideas when they came along. Well, one man saw opportunity where an entire corporation did not, and this man founded Apple Computers. And guess what? Apple Computers successfully sold PCs to millions of people all around the world, and this man was rewarded for his hard work and forsight by becoming a millionaire. IBM was shaken to its roots, realized the error of its ways, and started producing PCs of their own in order to compete in the then-new PC market. The standard bidding wars and product developments followed, which all benefited consumers, of course...

In addition, your statements about Amiga computers fails to take into account another important aspect of economics; what can be done, and what people are willing to pay for, are two completely different things. For example, it is entirely possible to make every car on the road crash-proof and bullet-proof, like the limos that Presidents and Prime Ministers around the world are driven around in. But are consumers willing to pay such high prices for such a car? No. And trying to force the prices for such cars down to make them affordable to the average consumer (price controls are a typical Socialist practice) would only destroy any incentive there is to mass produce cars at all in the first place, whether they have standard safety features or be a mobile fortress...

And I'm sorry, but saying that Capitalism has hindered technological innovation is nonsense. Have you never seen or read the comparisons of East Germany and West Germany? North Korea and South Korea? They're like night and day. Also, if Capitalism and its manifestations -- free-market republics -- are so bad, then why did East Germany and North Korea have to build walls to keep people IN and not OUT??? The typical South Korean today has a cellphone and a laptop computer. The typical North Korean still uses a typewriter (with government approval, of course) and a rotary phone, when one is available at all. Back before they reunited, the typical West German farmer had organic and chemical pesticides, tractors, and plant rotation technologies at his disposal; the typical East German farmer still used a plow and prayed for rain and sun at the right times and in the right places.

[James]

Originally posted by Squall


You're assuming that every person's effort is equal. For example, some people have knowledge that is much more useful than simple manual labor. Why go to college and study hard for 5 years to become an Engineer, Doctor, or Lawyer if there is nothing extra to be gained for your efforts? You want to better yourself and all of humanity, etc., of course, but face it -- everyone works hard to learn skills because they have the incentive of earning more money for their work if they learn these skills. Take that incentive away, and most people would say, "Well, if I'm going to get paid just as little to be a scientist as I would to be a janitor, then I might as well be a janitor. Why work harder for the same pay?" This by itself will kill Socialism every time.



I think the principle is that you want to help the community and so you happily do whatever job for the same amount as it is your part of society - whether you be doctor, or as a janitor. You don't work for the personal benefits of the job, just for the philsophical aspirations of a perfect society. It is a very robotic concept, and that's why it doesn't work. People don't want to be equal. That's the crux of the whole darn problem. There are some aspects of the concept which are worth keeping (social equality) but the whole idea is just not realistic at the moment - maybe a 20,000 years down the line.... ;)

[Squall]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Granted but Capitalism hasn't really fixed any of Romes problems that Socalism already has. Rome had poverty US has poverty, Rome had the lazy super rich US has lazy super rich.

What do you mean, "Capitalism hasn't really fixed any of Romes problems..."? The modern state of Italy is doing very well. It's one of the seven richest countries in the World!

Free-market economies have the lowest unemployment rates in the World. Socialist, Communist, and Dictatorship states have had and always will have massive unemployment problems as long as they ignore the basic rules of economics.

And why do you continue to assume that rich people are lazy? Entreprenuers who went from poverty to millionaires did not do so overnight; it took years of hard work and sacrifice before they were rewarded for their efforts. And even those who are born into a wealthy lifestyle have to learn the skills necessary to maintain this lifestyle. The old saying is true -- there's no such thing as a free lunch.

You also continue to discuss Capitalism as if it exists in a vacuum. It does not. Governments are established to keep people from stealing and frauding each other, which is detrimential in any human society.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Squall


You're assuming that every person's effort is equal. For example, some people have knowledge that is much more useful than simple manual labor. Why go to college and study hard for 5 years to become an Engineer, Doctor, or Lawyer if there is nothing extra to be gained for your efforts? You want to better yourself and all of humanity, etc., of course, but face it -- everyone works hard to learn skills because they have the incentive of earning more money for their work if they learn these skills. Take that incentive away, and most people would say, "Well, if I'm going to get paid just as little to be a scientist as I would to be a janitor, then I might as well be a janitor. Why work harder for the same pay?" This by itself will kill Socialism every time.Free access Socalism has no pay it works under the idea that there is a abundance of everything thus why limmit it thus everyone will have everything. Market Socalism goes under the idea of work vouchers that repersent work based on skill and such in the idea there is not a abundance of everything still even here when there is abundace it is free acess. So under Socalism why would a doctor learn skills when he can work as a janitor becouse unlike your example the Doctar does not need to go to school for years like under capitalism but simply be a apprentice to a professional doctar so why be a apprentice well to express and experience their own power to shape the world just like people that volunteer to help people out.


The Soviet Union and its satellite states did indeed begin as "ideal Socialist states." In the so-called ideal Socialist state, the people ARE the state, so the state uses this claim to take all private property from its citizens (this includes land, wealth, and intellectual property). Of course, the people can never truly BE the state; it can only represent them. When the Soviet Union and its satellite states realized that they could never keep up with the free-market republican states that they were competing against in the World economy, they were forced to adopt "state Capitalism" strategies just to keep from economically collapsing in on themselves.The problem the Soviet Union had was with Lenin making a ruling class becouse he though the average peasants would take 500 years to understand socilism. This is where the problem began under socilism the state is a servant to the people (meaning the state has not power to make decisions, that is the job of the people) not to rule the people becouse they are too stupid.


As for the Native Americans, they may indeed have survived for a long time within their Socialist societies, but that's just it -- they survived, but never thrived. Technological innovation was nonexistant among the Native American tribes.So Capitalism would? I don't see Africa comming up with technology advances under capitalism.


I think that you misunderstand how economics works. It's not just products, labor, and raw materials that are worth money; ideas, opportunity, and even time itself is worth money. Capitalism realizes that not all ideas and opportunities are equal; indeed, some ideas and opportunities are worth MUCH more than others. Socialism, with its "each gives according to their ability, each recieves according to their need" mantra, completely ignores this obvious fact. Furthermore, Capitalism also realizes that the value of a person's skills, just like the value of products produced, are determined by supply and demand. The more rare a person's skills are, and the more in demand these skills are, the more money a person can charge for using their skills to further someone else's goals. (And 'someone else' can be anything from using your skills to further a company's profits, to using your skills to please a customer. Either way, you'll be able to earn money for your work.)First of Socialism does not say to each acording to their needs Marx said From each according to his ability to each according to his deeds; from each according to his ability to each according to his needs. Meaning to give people accourding to both their deeds and needs meaning you give everyone food and water since they need it to live and reward everyone according to their deeds. Now Marx came up with a work voucher system for that but some Socalist find it cumbersome, having to issue vouchers to everyone that works from the painter to the housewife thus where free acess Socalism comes to play of just create a abundance and everyone can take what they want their rewards will be repect, graditute,ect plus the fact they can take what they want.


As for this PC discussion... When the PC was revealed as the latest "nerd" invention in the 1970's, the corporate giant IBM scoffed at the idea of PCs being ideal to mass produce for the home consumer, and stuck to the status quo of making mainframes and supercomputers for the government and large companies. In essence, IBM had deteriorated from its capitalist roots into a pseudo-socialist environment that refused to recognize new and interesting ideas when they came along. Well, one man saw opportunity where an entire corporation did not, and this man founded Apple Computers. And guess what? Apple Computers successfully sold PCs to millions of people all around the world, and this man was rewarded for his hard work and forsight by becoming a millionaire. IBM was shaken to its roots, realized the error of its ways, and started producing PCs of their own in order to compete in the then-new PC market. The standard bidding wars and product developments followed, which all benefited consumers, of course...
Granted but the Apple I was created becousee Woz wanted a toy to play with plus a toy other nerds can play with. This was a very socialist idea.


In addition, your statements about Amiga computers fails to take into account another important aspect of economics; what can be done, and what people are willing to pay for, are two completely different things. For example, it is entirely possible to make every car on the road crash-proof and bullet-proof, like the limos that Presidents and Prime Ministers around the world are driven around in. But are consumers willing to pay such high prices for such a car? Ahhh but the Amiga was the second cheapest computer only the Atari was cheaper yet the Amiga was better built and more powerful then its counter parts the Mac and the IBM compat. This is were capitalism hicups with superior products for cheaper but people pay more for less since the media tells them to. Take the philps screw it strips. The Robenson screw is the same price and does not strip and can be screwen in with one hand yet people use philps becouse it dominates the market. If people were willing to pay over $1500 for a IBM compat why wouldn't they pay 1000 for a better one? becouse they were not paying for a PC they were buying the name.


No. And trying to force the prices for such cars down to make them affordable to the average consumer (price controls are a typical Socialist practice) would only destroy any incentive there is to mass produce cars at all in the first place, whether they have standard safety features or be a mobile fortress...Price controls are not Socialist practice they are state capitalist practise. Even under market Socalism price are dictated by their usefulnes thus under Market Socalism a Amiga would have been more expensive then a IBM compat since it did more. A car that was a mobile fortress would be more expensive then a standard one since it did more. Of course under free acess Socalism they would all be free as long as their was a abundance. Under both brands of Socalism mass production come from the fact that the workers are the ones in charge and since they are doing it to better society they want to make sure everyone that wants want has one thus mass production means they can meet that goal with the less effort.


And I'm sorry, but saying that Capitalism has hindered technological innovation is nonsense. Have you never seen or read the comparisons of East Germany and West Germany? North Korea and South Korea? They're like night and day. Also, if Capitalism and its manifestations -- free-market republics -- are so bad, then why did East Germany and North Korea have to build walls to keep people IN and not OUT??? The typical South Korean today has a cellphone and a laptop computer. The typical North Korean still uses a typewriter (with government approval, of course) and a rotary phone, when one is available at all. Back before they reunited, the typical West German farmer had organic and chemical pesticides, tractors, and plant rotation technologies at his disposal; the typical East German farmer still used a plow and prayed for rain and sun at the right times and in the right places. Your example is of state capitalism not socalism they are farther from socalism then regular capitalism.


Free-market economies have the lowest unemployment rates in the World. Socialist, Communist, and Dictatorship states have had and always will have massive unemployment problems as long as they ignore the basic rules of economics.Socalist do, take a look at tribes they have zero unemployment.


And why do you continue to assume that rich people are lazy? Entreprenuers who went from poverty to millionaires did not do so overnight; it took years of hard work and sacrifice before they were rewarded for their efforts. And even those who are born into a wealthy lifestyle have to learn the skills necessary to maintain this lifestyle. The old saying is true -- there's no such thing as a free lunch.What about Bill Gates he can't program his why out of a paper bag and he is only rich by stabing people in the back like the MSX parnership in Japan which is why Japan don't like MS. And you are wrong about people who are born wealthy have learn skills to mantain their lifestyle take a look at any major family bussniess that gets passed to their offspring and you'll notice the companies quickly goes to the crapper. Eatons, Sams, you name it brats with silver spoons in their mouth have no works ethics


Originally posted by SJJI think the principle is that you want to help the community and so you happily do whatever job for the same amount as it is your part of society - whether you be doctor, or as a janitor. You don't work for the personal benefits of the job, just for the philsophical aspirations of a perfect society. It is a very robotic concept, and that's why it doesn't work. People don't want to be equal. That's the crux of the whole darn problem. There are some aspects of the concept which are worth keeping (social equality) but the whole idea is just not realistic at the moment - maybe a 20,000 years down the line.... Your are right it is working for better society that and for being useful. And from the we are equal why should I appoint some to run the nation where under Socalism I tell that person what I fell as do the rest of the nation and the majority controls the nation directly for example 60% of Americans did not want NAFT but we got it anyway is that democracy? that 40% of the people get what they want? And if evenyone can have a DVD player why shouldn't they why not make enough for everyone? the only diffence there is bettwen people is skill but everyone has skills just different sets of them. A expert miner has the same skill level as a expert engineer and has the same skill level as a expert piano player.

[Psycho Fox]

Look at agree that Capitalism is better the fudalism but it still has problems. After years of people tring to fix it there is still unemployent, poverty and it is still close to anarchy. We are now working harder then we did in the 60's after years of working smarter not harder, after the 60's it started going in the other direction if the trend keeps up we could be working 6 days a week again. Take a look at Newfoundland. They over fished there plus pollution has reduced the breeding of the cod thus unemployment and there is little the goverment can do. Think of all the people that go through life not able to work, think of the people stuck in a rut and get burned out. There is still no guarantee that another great depression can't hit, there are safe guards but they just reduce that chance. Thus why there are socalist since it is illogical not to look at altrenatives to capitalism even if it did work since standing still is no good and some sees it to be too old to fix and be like tring to fix fudalism to work as well as capitalism today.

During the depression the vast majority of people in the US and Canada were upset with capitalism and a group started from Vancouver and moved east towards Ottawa getting bigger all the time they were going to peacfully over throw the goverment in Canada then the US. The Canadain goverment tricked them by asking their leader to come alone while everyone else waited in a city with a RCMP base that bruatally attaked them. Anyway lets say these guys got their way and US and Cananda became United Socialist (US). So what stoping US becoming like China and the Soviet Union? A constitution with rights the United Stated already had one at the time it just needs a socialist one that gave the socialist rights ontop of the old ones. With rights and direct democracy socialism can't be any worse then what we got now. Can't have a dictator like Castro since the majority is in control there is no one party system like the Soviet Union or two like the US now but zero you elect each repesentive indivisibly and they carry out the wishes of the masses as long as it does not conflict with the constitution. So lets say today there was talking to switch back to capitalism I don't think it will go over well. Since due to it being a direct democracy the people will have to have all the fact so lets look at the pros and cons of capitalism compaired to socialism.

Pro some people can have more then others

Con some people will have less the others.

Pro a fair way to handle scarcity of goods.

Con a unfair way to handle abundance of goods.

Pro people can own the means of wealth thus use it as they see fit

Con the people working for the owner will most likey have little say thus a stressful workplacce.

Then you have the major conserns with capitalism there will be unemployment and homeless plus they will be once again working more hours. Thus from that point of view I think most people would make socialism better rather then jump back to capitalism and make that work since it would seem to backwards and obsolete as socialist now see it.

Can capitalism be better then it is right now yes, it was working better in the 50's and 60's then it is now but the fact that it worked better before and no signs of it going back to the golden age of capitalism might be a sign it is getting a bit over the hill but if the trend was going back towards the golden age then I wouldn't mind capitalism as much.

[Sandro]

Why do you keep insisting on using Native American tribes as an example of socialism? That example is irrelevant in today's modern world. When you can come up with a modern-day, working example of your socialist ideals, then I might actually listen to you.


I don't see Africa comming up with technology advances under capitalism.

They are too concerned with the widespread disease.


And if evenyone can have a DVD player why shouldn't they why not make enough for everyone?

Did you ever stop to think that not everyone might want a DVD player?


It's not just products, labor, and raw materials that are worth money; ideas, opportunity, and even time itself is worth money. Capitalism realizes that not all ideas and opportunities are equal; indeed, some ideas and opportunities are worth MUCH more than others. Socialism, with its "each gives according to their ability, each recieves according to their need" mantra, completely ignores this obvious fact. Furthermore, Capitalism also realizes that the value of a person's skills, just like the value of products produced, are determined by supply and demand. The more rare a person's skills are, and the more in demand these skills are, the more money a person can charge for using their skills to further someone else's goals. (And 'someone else' can be anything from using your skills to further a company's profits, to using your skills to please a customer. Either way, you'll be able to earn money for your work.)

This is exactly right. Why should someone pay person A with a masters college degree the same as person B with a doctorate? People's skills are on different levels, whether you want to accept this fact or not.

You will just have to face the fact that capitalism has produced wealth like no other system has before.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Sandro885
Why do you keep insisting on using Native American tribes as an example of socialism? That example is irrelevant in today's modern world. When you can come up with a modern-day, working example of your socialist ideals, then I might actually listen to you.So by your logic we should have never moved from fudalism since there was no modern-day working example of capitalism when the move was made.


Did you ever stop to think that not everyone might want a DVD player? Yhea but if we have enough food to feed everyone why not feed everyone if we can make DVD players for everyone that wants it why not.


This is exactly right. Why should someone pay person A with a masters college degree the same as person B with a doctorate? People's skills are on different levels, whether you want to accept this fact or not.We do that now. I have a college degree and only have a job I could have gotten right out of high school most of the people I know don't have jobs in the field they are trained in so what the point plus yes people have diffent skill sets but they all are good at certain things this is the idea of socialism that everyone has the same worth just differnt sets of skills the miner works just as hard as the assembly line worker that works just as hard as a doctar and they all are required for society to run plus right now I can't exercise my skills because I can't find a job that does even when I do I would only be exercising some of my skills. Do you know that there is a award winning animator that is homeless on the streets of Montreal begging for money? why becouse no one wants to hire him why becouse he is a bum why becouse duing the recession he lost his job it doesn't change the fact he is one of the most skilled animators. Face it capitalism is far from fair and just becouse someone is a doctar doesn't mean they have to be above the common worker since without the coal miner he or she wrould get get electricity for their home.


You will just have to face the fact that capitalism has produced wealth like no other system has before. Yes but at what cost? Take a look at the United States. Capitalism has turned it into the very thing Washinton was fighting aginst during the war of independace. The US economy peaked during the 50's and 60's becouse it had puppet goverments in the middle east and other areas just like UK that used basicly slave labour to gather resorces for the west with very little in return and if someone in these nations as much as sniffed about have a fair share of the fruits of their labour the US would call the communist and make sure their pupet goverment got rid of them in a most cruel way. The US still is fighting tooth and nail over the UNs proposal to allow future US war crimes be heard in internatonal court. What the diffence between that and the British Empire during the war of independance? face it if the US now was in the British shoes back then they would try and crush the rebels in the new world. Capitalism has turned the US into what it use to hate.

[randomguy]

So by your logic we should have never moved from fudalism since there was no modern-day working example of capitalism when the move was made.

You act like the move from feudalism to capitalism was a move made overnight, and conciously, which it was not. Capitalism evolved naturally out of feudalism. When socialism does the same (as Marx predicted it would), then I'll be the first person to concede defeat and embrace it. But until then, it's still an unrealistic concept.


Yhea but if we have enough food to feed everyone why not feed everyone if we can make DVD players for everyone that wants it why not.

I'm sorry, but that made no sense.


Yes but at what cost? Take a look at the United States. Capitalism has turned it into the very thing Washinton was fighting aginst during the war of independace. The US economy peaked during the 50's and 60's becouse it had puppet goverments in the middle east and other areas just like UK that used basicly slave labour to gather resorces for the west with very little in return and if someone in these nations as much as sniffed about have a fair share of the fruits of their labour the US would call the communist and make sure their pupet goverment got rid of them in a most cruel way. The US still is fighting tooth and nail over the UNs proposal to allow future US war crimes be heard in internatonal court. What the diffence between that and the British Empire during the war of independance? face it if the US now was in the British shoes back then they would try and crush the rebels in the new world. Capitalism has turned the US into what it use to hate.

You could make the argument that Capitalism has taken America very far from its ideals. And to a point, it's true. But I also think that that view is widely overexaggerated. I was reading the book "Affluenza" and found much of it to be very dramatic. I don't know if your average American citizen is the materialistic, inwardly unhappy person that many anti-capitalists make him or her out to be. I think, largely, America's people are happy, and better taken care of then most nations. Just my view.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by randomguy


You act like the move from feudalism to capitalism was a move made overnight, and conciously, which it was not. Capitalism evolved naturally out of feudalism. When socialism does the same (as Marx predicted it would), then I'll be the first person to concede defeat and embrace it. But until then, it's still an unrealistic concept.
Well there is 2 ways Socalism can come from Capitalism naturally. During the depresion the failure of capitalism and the basic drive of the vast majory in US and Canada came to the conclusion they don't give a rats ass about capitalism in Vancouver these people clung onto the socalist band wagon they were willing to work on the railway for FOOD,Shelter,Clothing and luxeries instead of money since they couldn't eat money when the goverment refused the idea they got the idea take control of both Canada and US without force but just chage the place since they can't shoot everyone when your talking over half the nations population. This failed due to RCMP intervention when the goverment told them to stay in a town with a RCMP base while the leader negotiated with the goverment.

The second is direct democracy that comes from socalism but can be fitted into Capitalism what it does is the elected officals are no longer decision makers the majority is and the officals just make it happen. The idea is once you get it so everyone from the rich to the bum on the street has a say socalism would slowly creep up.




I'm sorry, but that made no sense.
It comes from the idea that if you have enough food so every american can have a warm meal why not just give free access? why let it rot just becouse they don't have money for it?



You could make the argument that Capitalism has taken America very far from its ideals. And to a point, it's true. But I also think that that view is widely overexaggerated. I was reading the book "Affluenza" and found much of it to be very dramatic. I don't know if your average American citizen is the materialistic, inwardly unhappy person that many anti-capitalists make him or her out to be. I think, largely, America's people are happy, and better taken care of then most nations. Just my view. I agree America does do good and so does capitalism but that does not change the fact it is unfair that people go hungry that have skills as I said a award winning animator is a bum in montreal but I was talking about the outside. The nations the US uses so americans can have cheap gas and food. National archives has documents that states in the 50's the US goverment called the movent in these nations to establish capitalism with their nations intrest first and everyone else second as a bigger threat to US intrest then Communism and called it Economic Nationalism this is why the US invaded such nations as Guatemala. Marx said the capital tends to gravitate towards the ruling class in a caitalist society and so far there is nothing to prove him wrong poor nations get next to nothing for their labour while the west gets fat off of it.

Also how much is enough profit. Companies always want more, more profit which got us in this account mess we are in right now and will plague capitalism till its death with other problems like enviorment, health safty, worker right. All this works aginst capitalism and actully hurts the economy even though people want to this anti-capitalist stuff so it creates friction.

[VashTheStampede]

but that does not change the fact it is unfair
Life is Unfair? :confused: :p

[randomguy]

Also how much is enough profit. Companies always want more, more profit which got us in this account mess we are in right now and will plague capitalism till its death with other problems like enviorment, health safty, worker right. All this works aginst capitalism and actully hurts the economy even though people want to this anti-capitalist stuff so it creates friction.

Well here I start to agree with you. This is what I meant about Capitalism having just as many problems as Socialism, but them taking longer to become apparent. The entire idea of Capitalism is to continue making profits and to have the market/economy constantly expanding. In other words, the basis of Capitalism is that development keeps on going, populations keep on swelling, and things just grow larger and larger. There's regulation, but it doesn't really help much. Obviously, we've got a finite amount of resources on this planet, so Capitalism can't last forever, and with depleting resources, friction and conflict are created. Especially the American lifestyle, which uses so many resources. Hell, Dartmouth college released statistics theorizing that if everybody on Earth adapted the American lifestyle, we'd need three to five additional planets. So if we want any amount of forest land and are the least bit interested in preserving the planet, we WILL need to drop Capitalism sooner or later. Problem is, I don't think Socialism will ever come to light, as much as I'd love it to, which, for my money, means the human race is screwed. Eventually, that is.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by randomguy


Well here I start to agree with you. This is what I meant about Capitalism having just as many problems as Socialism, but them taking longer to become apparent. The entire idea of Capitalism is to continue making profits and to have the market/economy constantly expanding. In other words, the basis of Capitalism is that development keeps on going, populations keep on swelling, and things just grow larger and larger. There's regulation, but it doesn't really help much. Obviously, we've got a finite amount of resources on this planet, so Capitalism can't last forever, and with depleting resources, friction and conflict are created. Especially the American lifestyle, which uses so many resources. Hell, Dartmouth college released statistics theorizing that if everybody on Earth adapted the American lifestyle, we'd need three to five additional planets. So if we want any amount of forest land and are the least bit interested in preserving the planet, we WILL need to drop Capitalism sooner or later. Problem is, I don't think Socialism will ever come to light, as much as I'd love it to, which, for my money, means the human race is screwed. Eventually, that is. Well most socalist think that the natural change from capitalism to socalism would have accured during the great depression if it wasn't for the second world war that Marx and Engels could not have forseen in their models thus it stands to reason that the next depression socalism has a better chance since what are the odds of another world war to get capitalism out of the mud again. Plus many socalist point out that socalism can give everyone a confortable lifestyle like the american lifestyle without needing as much since unlike capitalism socalism doesn't have to remake everything as much since the point is to make everything made to last as long as possible so it doesn't have to be reproduced as much.

[Sandro]

Okay, I've got another question. If socialism is so much better than capitalism, how is it that America is the world's leading superpower?


Well most socalist think that the natural change from capitalism to socalism would have accured during the great depression if it wasn't for the second world war that Marx and Engels could not have forseen in their models

You have to remember that even though Roosevelt helped the situation during the Depression, it was really WWII that pulled pretty much everyone out of the slump that they were in.


Hell, Dartmouth college released statistics theorizing that if everybody on Earth adapted the American lifestyle, we'd need three to five additional planets.

I heard about that. It's really just outrageous! If anything, America is the most resource-efficient country on Earth.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Sandro885
Okay, I've got another question. If socialism is so much better than capitalism, how is it that America is the world's leading superpower?Socalism,Communism,Capitalism has nothing to do with power. Rome,China,Vikings,Britian,Spain,France were all super powers once. Being a superpower just mean your bigger then everyone else.



You have to remember that even though Roosevelt helped the situation during the Depression, it was really WWII that pulled pretty much everyone out of the slump that they were in.That's my point if there was no WWII even Roosevelts actions wouldn't get capitalism out of the mud thus why the next depresion there may be no choice but to abandon capitalism.


I heard about that. It's really just outrageous! If anything, America is the most resource-efficient country on Earth. That's rich. How durable is your car? chair? computer? the techology already exsist to make cars last over 100 years with proper maintance lawnmowers could last double that and how long do they last now on average? 10 maybe 20 years

[Sandro]

That's my point if there was no WWII even Roosevelts actions wouldn't get capitalism out of the mud thus why the next depresion there may be no choice but to abandon capitalism.

Hey now, when America went into the Depression, practically every country felt it. Doesn't that say something about America's capitalist system?

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Sandro885

Hey now, when America went into the Depression, practically every country felt it. Doesn't that say something about America's capitalist system? All it shows is how America is interconnected with the rest of the world but it wasn't all of Americas falt, tariff wars is what really sent shock waves that really set off the great depression.

[Psycho Fox]

Face it Capitalism died in 1929 it is only alive now becouse of WWII and imperalism afterwords the west keeping the 3rd world, 3rd world. Under capitalism these nations only have the choice of being a slave nation to the west or a rogue nation not much of a choice so why can't they have the american dream under capitalism? Becouse if they all did we would have another depression and no one would have the american dream. Thus to save capitalism the US has become just like what the British empire was but instead of oppression becouse of right of might they are doing it to protect capitalism. No nation can follow in the US foot steeps or the US will bomb them back into the stone age and they have too. Same to a lesser extent with the rest of the western world. So basicly the US has threw away everything their ancestor fought for except for capitalism becouse it is the reason they are throwing away everything else. So when does the price of capitalism becone to high?

Thus the question is Capitalism and true democracy compaitble?

[randomguy]

Thus the question is Capitalism and true democracy compaitble?

Moreso than socialism and true democracy.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by randomguy


Moreso than socialism and true democracy. Well that depends on your point of view. From socialism point of view we are all cogs in the gaint social machine. Some may be bigger, some may spin faster but they are still all as important as the next. Thus why Socalist cry for direct democracy since not only do we want to elect our representatives but have a real say in what they do. Thus what the majority wants the majority gets and the elected representatives only has as much say as the next guy or gal. Don't get Socalism wrong it still recognizes individuality but no ones individuality is more important than anyone elses.

Capitalism on the other hand is the opposite it is from the point of view that we are not equal and those better deserve better at the expence of those inferior to them.

[Squall]

The United States is a republic, not a democracy. A republic is democratic in nature, but not a pure democracy. As John Adams once said, "A democracy is four wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner." A republic has majority rule with minority protection at the same time. (Minorities can be economic, philosophical, and of course, racial and cultural.)

Now, like anything created by Humans, no republic has ever functioned perfectly, but, unlike most other forms of government, republics have the ablility to correct themselves without self-destructing... (the same goes for constitutional monarchies, like the U.K.)

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Squall
The United States is a republic, not a democracy. A republic is democratic in nature, but not a pure democracy. As John Adams once said, "A democracy is four wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner." A republic has majority rule with minority protection at the same time. (Minorities can be economic, philosophical, and of course, racial and cultural.)

Now, like anything created by Humans, no republic has ever functioned perfectly, but, unlike most other forms of government, republics have the ablility to correct themselves without self-destructing... (the same goes for constitutional monarchies, like the U.K.) True kinda it is still minority rule the majority just picks which minority runs. Compaire the goverment to the amount of people in the US and you'll see the minority of Americans are running the lives of the majoirity. The idea of Socalism is that everyone is equal thus the rights of minorities are protected by Socalism as is everyone elses since Socalism is blind to personal matters (philosoplhical, racial, cultural,ect) the idea is that those personal matters are just that personal thus deserve no special trement, neither ones the benifit them nor ones that harm them thus laws can protect minorites but other then that they still only have the same voice as everyone else in their community. Oh and Socalism can like republic and correct themselves via direct democracy.