a few questions for socialist/communists

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Yeah, I understood your analogy myself. I kinda take your view on this. I've always wondered the same thing, and I usually end up in these types of discussions when I go out to eat with friends since one happens to be almost a party-line marxist. We keep engaging the guy about his views, but he never seems to justify communism's failure. He keeps rattling on and on how everyone should be "equal" and how things "should be" without addressing the reality of what communism is in its current form. Finally, we just stopped talking about it since it was the same old arguement over and over again. I'm not at all suprised at how this thread has gone, though...seems just like that lunch table....
But as for socialism, the modern, European version, I see its problems as well as its sucesses. I'd take it over old-style communism anyday. Capitalism, on the other hand, has its problems too. I prefer what we have here in the states from what I do know about these other systems though.

i get into the same kinds of discussions all the time as well, and it is true capitalism does have it's problems as any type of "system" does. what always entertains me is when having nothing to stand on they start spouting of literacy figures from other countries, what cuba's literacy rate has to do with a debate on political/economic systems i do not know! perhaps since all the young children in cuba can read the che quevera and castro propaganda posters mean communism really IS better ROFL!!! maybe the fact that the nation of france is on par with the state of california(1 of 50 in the entire US with france having a much higher unemployment rate than the US as well) AND the fact france's economy is more capitalist than socialist somehow makes the socialistic economic theory better...

the ironic thing about socialism is it's disdain for the individual, but as history demonstrates, it is individuals that kill it. or as a mentor of mine once put it "the failure of socialism is that people tend to be human."

YOU STARTED THIS THREAD WITH AN EXAMPLE ABOUT GRADES AND EDUCATION AND WHEN I POST A LINK ABOUT LITERACY THEN ALL OF THE SUDDEN MY EXAMPLE IS BOGUS.

nice try buddy

you are making claims and statements that I have proven false every single time

 

[AvesPKS]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
do you think that in your class should take all grades of all students and average them out and that everyone should pass no matter who did the most or least work, or do you think you should keep your grade that you worked for and if another student fails it is his responsibility and not yours?

after graduation, should the person who did the least amount of/and/or quality work get the best job available beause he needs it more than other people who would do the job better? should a person who cannot or will not do thier job properly be dismissed? what if they do not want to work at all?

what effect would this have on the quality of work done overall? what effect would it have on cost of production? what effect does cost of production have on the consumer?

name one modern country where the end result of socialism/communism has proven beneficial overall to the welfare of the people and give historical evidence.



think them through!

Well I know I don't want your grade. Your little diatribe contains grammatical and spelling mistakes as well as conclusions based on hypothetical conjectures that can't be pre-established.

Hehe...this from the king of spelling error...I've never (at least I don't think, correct me if I'm wrong) used your "grammatical and spelling mistakes" as a source to rebutt your point...

Hey, never mind this socialist stuff, what the hell's wrong with my grammar. And look here, I wasn't asking for or talking about grades like sparrow hawk was. Oh man, I'm outraged. My grammar's perfect I say.
==================

i do what i can to help my fellow man because it is in my heart to do so, scrooge did so after he had a change of heart as well, not because the political philosophy of a socialistic goverment forced him to with the threat of siezure of property and vacation time at a re-education camp.
-------------------------
See in a communistic and socialist society they cut out the wait time for scrooge to grow up. It's horribly inefficient to wait eighty years for the ghosts to appear. Why wait when you wind up in the same place anyway. And all that wealth scrooge had could have been shared early on and his charity wouldn't have been needed. Plus he was only one convert out of millions of more of his kind. Deferred justice isn't justice.

You did not capitalize "scrooge"; as a proper noun, it deserves to be capitalized, and as such, constitutes a grammatical error. Does this give me a proper footing on which to refute your point?


EDIT: Oh, yeah, and "siezure" is spelled "seizure"...is this also grounds for refuting a point? Your spelling error (combined with the aformentioned grammatical error) obviously illuminates your inadequate education, and your obvious inability to sustain an intelligible argument...

 

[Moonbeam]

Oh man don't you know the difference between a spelling mistake and a typo. As for scrooge, well of course you are wrong. Scrooge has become a word:

Scrooge also scrooge ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skrj)
n.
A mean-spirited miserly person; a skinflint.

And I don't give a damn about you criticizing my spelling; it was the attack on my grammar that hurt. Sheesh!

I'm so mad I'm tempted to tell you, the third time in this post, that the point of my questioning his grammar and spelling wasn't to criticize his grammar and spelling as faults in them selves of moment to me, but to show chicken hawk there, that before he starts worrying about others pulling down his grade he should ascertain that's he's going to get one to crow about before he goes into siezures.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Socialism doesn't have "disdain" of the Individual, it puts the whole above the Individual. A significant difference. Again I must ask though: What "Socialism" are you talking about? It seems you want to use one forms faults in order to criticize the other.

what kind of socialism? the basic tenants of all forms of socialism have several common points be it national socialism, utopian socialism, or guild socialism. no matter what flavor it almost always ends up a dictatorship or an oligarchy. at least that is what history shows if if we pay attention to it...few people do.

this is socialism that occurs in the real world, as opposed to the fictional non-existant socialism young people read about in handouts and hear about from people who say "would'nt it be great if" and perhaps sing "if only"... if the human mindset existed to make socialism work, socialism or aNY form of government would not even be needed...it would be a moot point. this is happening in the psuedo socilist state of france, the objective fact is people have less freedom there, most notably freedom of speech, burn the french flag in france, you get a hefty fine AND jail time.

people like tossing the term "nazi" around as an insult to bush, perhaps they have forgotten the word "nazi" is a contraction of "Nationalsozialist" which translated to english is "national socialist" politically chirac is much more a nazi than bush is.

alot of what people try to call "modern" socialism is simply older ideas or simply emotions that it has incorporated. and in typical fashion, the younger generation somehow think they invented it. any help i provide for my fellow man from a sense of duty is sourced from my compassion for him/her...an emotion...not some political dogma. it is not something i or anyone else can be forced to feel by legislation or a re-education camp.

learn the lessons of history, or repeat it's mistakes. socialism does not work, it will not EVER work.

have a good day everyone! my son is a freshman at UT and my wife and i are going to go take him to lunch and visit awhile.

 

[Moonbeam]

I, myself, am down on dictatorships. Can you show me one dictatorship that's any good. Oh and don't try to hand me that stuff about Bush saying he wishes he were a dictator cause everything would be easier. He was just kidding around. Byt seriously, look at history and take off your tin foil hats and really think deep. Has there ever been a good dictatorship. No they are all terrible things.

do you think that in your class should take all grades of all students and and just give you what ever grade the dictator wants? or average them out and that everyone should fail no matter who did the most or least work, or do you think you should keep your grade he dictates to you that you worked for and if another student passes it is the dictator' responsibility and not yours?

after graduation, should the person who did the least amount of/and/or quality work get the best job available beause he the dictator says so and wants him to have it more than other people who would do the job better? should a person who cannot or will not do thier job properly be promoted by the dictator or paid if they do not want to work at all?

what effect would this have on the quality of work done overall? what effect would it have on cost of production? what effect does cost of production have on the consumer?

name one modern country where the end result of dictatorship has proven beneficial overall to the welfare of the people and give historical evidence.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Socialism doesn't have "disdain" of the Individual, it puts the whole above the Individual. A significant difference. Again I must ask though: What "Socialism" are you talking about? It seems you want to use one forms faults in order to criticize the other.

what kind of socialism? the basic tenants of all forms of socialism have several common points be it national socialism, utopian socialism, or guild socialism. no matter what flavor it almost always ends up a dictatorship or an oligarchy. at least that is what history shows if if we pay attention to it...few people do.

this is socialism that occurs in the real world, as opposed to the fictional non-existant socialism young people read about in handouts and hear about from people who say "would'nt it be great if" and perhaps sing "if only"... if the human mindset existed to make socialism work, socialism or aNY form of government would not even be needed...it would be a moot point. this is happening in the psuedo socilist state of france, the objective fact is people have less freedom there, most notably freedom of speech, burn the french flag in france, you get a hefty fine AND jail time.

people like tossing the term "nazi" around as an insult to bush, perhaps they have forgotten the word "nazi" is a contraction of "Nationalsozialist" which translated to english is "national socialist" politically chirac is much more a nazi than bush is.

alot of what people try to call "modern" socialism is simply older ideas or simply emotions that it has incorporated. and in typical fashion, the younger generation somehow think they invented it. any help i provide for my fellow man from a sense of duty is sourced from my compassion for him/her...an emotion...not some political dogma. it is not something i or anyone else can be forced to feel by legislation or a re-education camp.

learn the lessons of history, or repeat it's mistakes. socialism does not work, it will not EVER work.

have a good day everyone! my son is a freshman at UT and my wife and i are going to go take him to lunch and visit awhile.

the objective fact is people have less freedom there, most notably freedom of speech, burn the french flag in france, you get a hefty fine AND jail time.

this is getting better with every post - YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT IS HAPPENING OUTSIDE THE USA

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Why are you even posing the question(s) if you've already made up your mind? Further, some people (myself not one of them) would argue that the U.S. has become at least partially socialist. What do you think about that?

i think a great attempt is being made to turn us to socialism by the extreme left. as far as my mind being made up i am not a closed minded person, but when i ask legitimate questions that are only answered by personal attacks, i assume that those with the opposing viewpoint cannot rationally defend thier viewpoint and only have to ability to use their wit for insults rather than thinking on issues.

i have many valid points and questions.

if socialism is the superior philosophy, why has it never worked? (and yes it has been tried..many times)

if socialism is the superior economic philosophy, why are the top 3 performing economies capitalistic?

people like to talk about how bad the economy is in the state of california, and relatively speaking to it's past performance it is not as good as it was, but the GP of california still exceeds that of the nation of france... the GNP of the US is still the best in the world by a wide margin.

if everyone is equal in socialism, why is the gap between rich and poor much greater in socialistic economies than in the US?

1) Extreme Left trying to establish Socialism? You think? Of course, that's what "Extreme Left" is. Of course, who is "Extreme Left" will vary greatly depending on who makes the Judgement.

2) Socialism has never worked? Which "Socialism" are we talking about, Soviet(Communist) or the much more successful European(Democratic) Socialism?

3) I don't think even Socialists believe their Economic Philosophy will outperform Capitalism, could be wrong. Socialists are more concerned with Wealth Parity then Wealth Accumulation then Capitalists are, so in that sense they are more "successful". It's a difference of Priorities, IOW, they are not focussed on Wealth Accumulation as Capitalists are, so of course Capitalism is more "successful" as far as Wealth Accumulation is concerned.

4)US GNP the best in the World? See point #3. However, Capitalism is not the only reason for this. For a very long time the US has been the most populous Industrialized nation, but there are other factors that have helped it to be the dominant Economy it is. Those are:

a) Unlike most other Industrialized Nations, the US was founded on a landmass that was relatively undeveloped, Japan and Europe had Centuries and even Millenia of Civilizations who exploited Natural Resources(see next point b). Add to this situation that the US was founded at the start(circa) of the Industrial Revolution so those newfound Resources could be put directly into efficient production.

b) Partly due to lack of exploitation, but also due to the very large(in comparison to most other Industrialized Nations) landmass of the US, there was a lot of Natural Resources to be exploited. Not only were these Resources in very large Volume, but they also were of a very great Variety, something that smaller landmass Nations lack.

c) In relation to point (a): The fact that the US landmass was unexploited meant that the cost of acquiring its' Natural Resources was quite inexpensive. The more exploited European and Japanese resources meant that it was more difficult and costly to Acquire the Resouces. This was why Europe had tried to maintain Colonies in the New World, the Lumber, Fish, Metals, and other Resources that were plentiful in the New World were making them very Wealthy. It only stands to reason that the Colonists would become extremely Wealthy if they kept those Resources for themselves.

d) War or the lack thereof. Besides WW1/WW2, Europe had many War's amongst it's Nations. Some of these were in distant places of the World, but many of these wars were fought on European soil which increases the cost(loss of Infrastructure, homes, Industry) of war significantly. The US had only 1(Civil War) or 2(War of 1812) of these events. They did fight many other wars, but those were on the enemies Territory(what was the Enemy Territory in many cases) and were usually very profitable acquisitions.

e) The relatively Peaceful Isolation that he US enjoyed and the vast abundance/variety of Resources meant that the US could take their own Natural Resources, Manufacture them, and Sell them to Europe at great Profit. Most Europeans were only able to do similar by exploiting far off Colonies and Transport those Resources at great cost to the Homeland where they would be Manufactured into Goods.


Capitalist's like to pat themselves on the back, but the Truth is that they would have become Wealthy no matter what, it was Luck or Providence more than Economic System. That's not to say that Capitalism is without its' merits or that Capitalism had no effect on what the US is today, it's just disingenuous to attribute Wealth solely to Capitalism as it is today.

5) Gap between Rich/Poor. I think the answer to this question is that you are dyslexic!

:beer: The best replies always get ignored by capitalitsts. "Socialism has never worked and never will."? - Sure, if that helps you sleep at night.

 

[Colt45]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

people like tossing the term "nazi" around as an insult to bush, perhaps they have forgotten the word "nazi" is a contraction of "Nationalsozialist" which translated to english is "national socialist" politically chirac is much more a nazi than bush is.

LMAO, where do you come up with this sh|t?

the nazi movement had very little in common with either modern european socialism, or older SSSR style socialism.

a lot of its style is shared with fascism.


smrt fasizmu, sloboda narodu!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Socialism doesn't have "disdain" of the Individual, it puts the whole above the Individual. A significant difference. Again I must ask though: What "Socialism" are you talking about? It seems you want to use one forms faults in order to criticize the other.

what kind of socialism? the basic tenants of all forms of socialism have several common points be it national socialism, utopian socialism, or guild socialism. no matter what flavor it almost always ends up a dictatorship or an oligarchy. at least that is what history shows if if we pay attention to it...few people do.

this is socialism that occurs in the real world, as opposed to the fictional non-existant socialism young people read about in handouts and hear about from people who say "would'nt it be great if" and perhaps sing "if only"... if the human mindset existed to make socialism work, socialism or aNY form of government would not even be needed...it would be a moot point. this is happening in the psuedo socilist state of france, the objective fact is people have less freedom there, most notably freedom of speech, burn the french flag in france, you get a hefty fine AND jail time.

people like tossing the term "nazi" around as an insult to bush, perhaps they have forgotten the word "nazi" is a contraction of "Nationalsozialist" which translated to english is "national socialist" politically chirac is much more a nazi than bush is.

alot of what people try to call "modern" socialism is simply older ideas or simply emotions that it has incorporated. and in typical fashion, the younger generation somehow think they invented it. any help i provide for my fellow man from a sense of duty is sourced from my compassion for him/her...an emotion...not some political dogma. it is not something i or anyone else can be forced to feel by legislation or a re-education camp.

learn the lessons of history, or repeat it's mistakes. socialism does not work, it will not EVER work.

have a good day everyone! my son is a freshman at UT and my wife and i are going to go take him to lunch and visit awhile.

Again, you are taking Soviet style Socialism and extrapolating it to European style Socialism. Moonie said it well, Dictatorship sucks no matter what the Economic system, the Soviet Union was a Dictatorship, France isn't. Sure, European style Socialism has it's flaws and problems, but the US Capitalism also has its' flaws and problems.

The biggest difference between the 2, as far as the Individual is concerned, is in what "Freedom" is emphasized. For eg: Take 2 people, 1 living in a Capitalist(pure) system, the other living in a Socialist(pure) system. Person A lives in a Capitalist system, person B in a Socialist system:

Both get/have Cancer:

1) Person A, Wealthy: This person goes to the Doctor, gets diagnosed with Cancer, begins treatment.
2) Person A Poor: This person goes to the Doctor, (we'll assume he gets diagnosed with Cancer), but he can't afford Treatment so he doesn't get it.
3) Person B Wealthy: This person goes to the Doctor, gets diagnosed with Cancer, begins treatment.
4) Person B Poor: This person goes to the Doctor, gets diagnosed with Cancer, begins treatment.

Retirement Investment:

1) Person A Wealthy: This person has lots of funds that it can invest into a new business or a variety of Investment vehicles.
2) Person A Poor: This person lives from Paycheque to Paycheque, once in awhile it may have some extra funds for a Savings Bond or such, but overall not enough for a comfortable Retirement.
3) Person B Wealthy: Has many of the same opportunities as Person A Wealthy, but its' taxes are higher so it has less Funds for Investments. It will have a comfortable retirement though.
4) Person B Poor: Like Person A Poor, it does not have much for Retirement Investment. However, it can Retire reasonably comfortably as it's Healthcare, Housing, and a form of Social Security provides for most of its' needs.

Upward Mobility(the YUPPIE factor)/Employment:

1) Person A Wealthy: Doesn't really need either, but certainly has the Freedom to go ahead and accumulate more Wealth.
2) Person A Poor: Has the Highest Potential of Upward Mobility of any the other 3. This person will most likely reach the Average(Middle Class), but its' chance of reaching the Wealthy Class is good enough that trying is a worthy goal.
3) Person B Wealthy: Doesn't really need either, but certainly has the Freedom to try. Although its' Freedom is somewhat less than Person A Wealthy, as higher Tax Rates and tighter Business Controls make things more difficult.
4) Person B Poor: This Person has the most difficult path to Upward Mobility, without a really good education. Fortunetly that Education is readily available and affordable. OTOH, it is not alone in becoming a Doctor, Lawyer, or other Professional, so it needs to be at the top of it's class in order to gain employment as such.

Work environment

1) Person A Wealthy: Whatever this person chooses
2) Person A Poor: Low wages, long hours, perhaps 2 jobs, few benefits(depends on Law or Employer Incentives)
3) Person B Wealthy: Whatever this person chooses
4) Person B Poor: Low wages(though likey better than Person A Poor), hours are limited by Law(40/35), many benefits such as Vacation time/Unemployment Insurance/Medical/Retirement Plan/Worker Compensation/etc. This person may never accumulate much Wealth, but will have a comfortable life.



I could go on, but I just want to make a point: One (Capitalism/Socialism) doesn't value/devalue the Individual any more than the other, in fact the Individual is very important to both. What they do differently is how they offer the Individual Freedom:

Capitalism offers the Individual the Freedom to acquire Wealth and rewards them if they succeed. However, if that person does not Succeed, it has little Freedom to enjoy its' time.

Socialism offers the Individual the Freedom to enjoy its' time. However, that person has little Freedom to improve its' Economic Class.

It is really a matter of Priorities, one offers complete Freedom to those who Succeed, the other offers significant Freedom to All whether they Succeed or not.


The biggest problem with the argueument: "Socialism has never worked and that Capitalism does work" is, as stated previously, the Socialism(pure) has been tried, but Capitalism(pure) hasn't been tried. We know that Socialism(pure) has failed, but we don't know if Capitalism(pure) would succeed. In short, it is a fallacy to say that Capitalism (pure) will succeed, as we don't know, we certainly can't say that Capitalism(pure) has succeeded.

Europe and the US are a mix of Capitalism and Socialism. They each lean one way or the other, but neither is a "pure" form. There are very good reasons for that.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Again, you are taking Soviet style Socialism and extrapolating it to European style Socialism. Moonie said it well, Dictatorship sucks no matter what the Economic system, the Soviet Union was a Dictatorship, France isn't. Sure, European style Socialism has it's flaws and problems, but the US Capitalism also has its' flaws and problems.

again your missing the point, what is refered to as "european" socialism(there is another kind?) is what gave birth to the dictatorships i mention...this occured during the nationalization phase of socialistic theory actually being implemented in various eurpean countries in the 20th century. when the government nationalized the major banking/credit, manufacturing/distribution systems, those in the govt. never let control go of this power. european socialism gave us european dictatorships. france may not be a dictatorship yet, but it is well on it's way to becoming an oligarchy.

The biggest difference between the 2, as far as the Individual is concerned, is in what "Freedom" is emphasized. For eg: Take 2 people, 1 living in a Capitalist(pure) system, the other living in a Socialist(pure) system. Person A lives in a Capitalist system, person B in a Socialist system:

Both get/have Cancer:

1) Person A, Wealthy: This person goes to the Doctor, gets diagnosed with Cancer, begins treatment.
2) Person A Poor: This person goes to the Doctor, (we'll assume he gets diagnosed with Cancer), but he can't afford Treatment so he does not get it.
3) Person B Wealthy: This person goes to the Doctor, gets diagnosed with Cancer, begins treatment.
4) Person B Poor: This person goes to the Doctor, gets diagnosed with Cancer, begins treatment.

i understand that is how the theory goes, the unfortunate thing is called reality.

1) Person A, Wealthy: This person goes to the Doctor, gets diagnosed with Cancer, begins treatment.
2) Person A Poor: This person goes to the Doctor, (we'll assume he gets diagnosed with Cancer), but he can't afford Treatment so he may or may not get it. many charitable organizations exist in all countries that see to the poor, in the US many hospitals provide free medical care as a tax write off as well
3) Person B Wealthy: This person goes to the Doctor, gets diagnosed with Cancer, begins treatment if he A) is considered important by the state. B) is well conntected to someone who is.
4) Person B Poor: This person goes to the Doctor, gets diagnosed with Cancer, begins treatment after being on a waiting list due to limited resources...if he is still alive or has not been triaged as terminal.

Retirement Investment:

1) Person A Wealthy: This person has lots of funds that it can invest into a new business or a variety of Investment vehicles.
2) Person A Poor: This person lives from Paycheque to Paycheque, once in awhile it may have some extra funds for a Savings Bond or such, but overall not enough for a comfortable Retirement.
3) Person B Wealthy: Has many of the same opportunities as Person A Wealthy, but its' taxes are higher so it has less Funds for Investments. It will have a comfortable retirement though.
4) Person B Poor: Like Person A Poor, it does not have much for Retirement Investment. However, it can Retire reasonably comfortably as it's Healthcare, Housing, and a form of Social Security provides for most of its' needs.

1) Person A Wealthy OR middle class: This person has lots of funds that it can invest into a new business or a variety of Investment vehicles.
2) Person A Poor: This person lives from Paycheque to Paycheque, once in awhile it may have some extra funds for a Savings Bond or such, but overall not enough for a comfortable Retirement.
3) Person B Wealthy: Has many of the same opportunities as Person A Wealthy, but its' taxes are higher so it has less Funds for Investments. It will have a comfortable retirement though.
4) Person B Poor: Like Person A Poor, it does not have much for Retirement Investment. However, it can Retire reasonably comfortably as it's Healthcare, Housing, and a form of Social Security provides for most of its' needs unless the funding gets cut in which case he and millions like him have to work until they die supporting the bloated state govt.

Upward Mobility(the YUPPIE factor)/Employment:

1) Person A Wealthy: Doesn't really need either, but certainly has the Freedom to go ahead and accumulate more Wealth.
2) Person A Poor: Has the Highest Potential of Upward Mobility of any the other 3. This person will most likely reach the Average(Middle Class), but its' chance of reaching the Wealthy Class is good enough that trying is a worthy goal.
3) Person B Wealthy: Doesn't really need either, but certainly has the Freedom to try. Although its' Freedom is somewhat less than Person A Wealthy, as higher Tax Rates and tighter Business Controls make things more difficult.
4) Person B Poor: This Person has the most difficult path to Upward Mobility, without a really good education. Fortunetly that Education is readily available and affordable. OTOH, it is not alone in becoming a Doctor, Lawyer, or other Professional, so it needs to be at the top of it's class in order to gain employment as such or be well connected to those in positions of power the the govt.

4) Person B Poor: This Person has the most difficult path to Upward Mobility, without a really good education. that Education was supposed to be readily available and affordable but rates had to go up because of budget cuts elswhere. if he is lucky in becoming a Doctor, Lawyer, or other Professional, so it needs to be at the top of it's class in order to gain employment as such or be well connected to those in positions of power the the govt.

Work environment

1) Person A Wealthy: Whatever this person chooses
2) Person A Poor: Low wages, long hours, perhaps 2 jobs, few benefits(depends on Law or Employer Incentives)
3) Person B Wealthy: Whatever this person chooses
4) Person B Poor: Low wages(though likey better than Person A Poor), hours are limited by Law(40/35), many benefits such as Vacation time/Unemployment Insurance/Medical/Retirement Plan/Worker Compensation/etc. This person may never accumulate much Wealth, but will have a comfortable life.

1) Person A Wealthy: Whatever this person chooses
2) Person A Poor: Low wages, long hours, perhaps 2 jobs, few benefits(depends on Law or Employer Incentives or if overtime is offered and accepted) or welfare.
3) Person C Poor by choice because he has figured out he can fool the system and stay on welfare without having to work.
4) Person B Wealthy: Whatever this person chooses
5) Person B Poor: Low wages(though likey better than Person A Poor although the cost of living usually makes this a moot point), hours are limited by Law(40/35), many benefits such as Vacation time/Unemployment Insurance/Medical/Retirement Plan/Worker Compensation/etc. This person may never accumulate much Wealth, but will hopefully have a comfortable life if benefit funding does not get cut... or if a heat wave kills him because he cannot afford/is denied air conditioning by teh state because it does not have enough electricity.
6) Person C Poor like his capitalist counterpart, for the same reasons, although in socialist counteries he vastly outnumbers them because the whole nation is on welfare. becomes a drain on the system until forced to work, doing an inept job making many errors and through collective ineptitude, drives the costs of production up, creating inflation.

I could go on, but I just want to make a point: One (Capitalism/Socialism) doesn't value/devalue the Individual any more than the other, in fact the Individual is very important to both. What they do differently is how they offer the Individual Freedom:

Capitalism offers the Individual the Freedom to acquire Wealth and rewards them if they succeed. However, if that person does not Succeed, it has little Freedom to enjoy its' time.

1. socialism: the individual exists to serve the collective/community paramount importance is place on the state's welfare.
2. republican(representative) Government as envisioned in the beginning of the US(capitalism is an economic theory, not a governmental theory): the state exists to safeguard the rights and freedoms of the individual, the individual and his freedom take paramount importance over that of the state, should the state severly limit the rights of the people they by according to the DoI are entitled to remove it see historical documents A. declaration of independence B. US constitution.

the individual

Socialism offers the Individual the Freedom to enjoy its' time. However, that person has little Freedom to improve its' Economic Class.

It is really a matter of Priorities, one offers complete Freedom to those who Succeed, the other offers significant Freedom to All whether they Succeed or not.

socialism(as practiced in the real world) does offer the indvidual limited freedom, as long as that freedom does not take from the primary responsibility of the indvidual to contribute to the states well being, or in some states speak out against the state.(go burn a french flag in france and see how much "freedom of speech people really have there)

The biggest problem with the argueument: "Socialism has never worked and that Capitalism does work" is, as stated previously, the Socialism(pure) has been tried, but Capitalism(pure) hasn't been tried. We know that Socialism(pure) has failed, but we don't know if Capitalism(pure) would succeed. In short, it is a fallacy to say that Capitalism (pure) will succeed, as we don't know, we certainly can't say that Capitalism(pure) has succeeded.

the biggest problem with your argument is that capitalism is an economic theory. and pure capitalism HAS been tried(it is called free trade)..take the top 3 economies in the world which happen to be capitalistic, and they outperform the rest of the world combined. we do know the success of capitalism. it is readily apparant when real world results are taken into consideration.

Europe and the US are a mix of Capitalism and Socialism. They each lean one way or the other, but neither is a "pure" form. There are very good reasons for that.

that is becoming true i think.

man these long posts sure take alot of time! i think i will play some C&C generals

 

[freegeeks]

socialism(as practiced in the real world) does offer the indvidual limited freedom, as long as that freedom does not take from the primary responsibility of the indvidual to contribute to the states well being, or in some states speak out against the state.(go burn a french flag in france and see how much "freedom of speech people really have there)


have you ever burned a French flag in France?????

you are talking out of your ass

let's play a game

you give me a freedom that you enjoy in the "land of the free" and that I don't have in the evil "socialist dicatorship" where I live

 

[freegeeks]

^^^^^^^

still waiting ....

 

[Alexadi]

Shad0hawK, a q for ya:
Why should capitalism succeed?
It alwais fails into some pseudo socialistic governmental intervention soup. Maybe there's a reason for it.
Like why should it be in the best interests of the people that work in the government to apply libertarian economy?
And why should it be most profitable for businesses to no seek government intervention?
And why should an individual not prefer to be subsidised by the state if the possibility arises?

Libertarians always point to communism as the great big evil and explain how freedom, property rights and free entreprise would bring so much better results.
It doesn't because it ignores the individual and his choices. It's the old "if only people would..." We are all free riders.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Alexadi
Shad0hawK, a q for ya:
Why should capitalism succeed?
It alwais fails into some pseudo socialistic governmental intervention soup. Maybe there's a reason for it.
Like why should it be in the best interests of the people that work in the government to apply libertarian economy?
And why should it be most profitable for businesses to no seek government intervention?
And why should an individual not prefer to be subsidised by the state if the possibility arises?

Libertarians always point to communism as the great big evil and explain how freedom, property rights and free entreprise would bring so much better results.
It doesn't because it ignores the individual and his choices. It's the old "if only people would..." We are all free riders.

it is not a matter of "should" succeed. it is a matter of "does" succeed, for the same reason natural selection works in nature. as far a capitalism "failing into pseudo socialism" it is socialistic elements already in the government that interfere with free trade.

as far as your question about "libertarian economy"? that would depend on how your defining it. a capitalisitic economy is in the best interest of the indvidual and people as a whole because it promotes competency, those who are best able to succeed, succeed on thier own merit a competent craftsman will produce products of higher quality with less production costs than an incompetant craftsman. the end user ALWAYS benefits from competant craftsmanship.

if the government intervens in business(i assume your tlaking about tarrifs and such) it is to protect a business that is being outdone by it's comeptition overseas bringing to severe financial difficulty. if your heart lies with that particular business it can be viewed as beneficial, but in the perpective of the end user what the government has done was take a chaper, maybe better product and made it more expensive for them to buy. many consumers would not view these as beneficial to them.

a profitable business do not need government intervention...it is already sucessful. some may want government assistance to open new markets, but i do not see how this could be defined as socialistic.

can you specify exactly what type of subsidation your referring to?

as far as communism being a failure and "evil" it is not my opinion, it is historical fact. for example, chinas economy has improved the more it implements capitalistic concepts, also it now has hong kong's economic figures added to it's own.

it seems to me capitalism is not bialed out by "psuedo-socialism" but that socialism is bailed out by "psuedo capitalism"

it would also be nice to see you answer the same questions.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
socialism(as practiced in the real world) does offer the indvidual limited freedom, as long as that freedom does not take from the primary responsibility of the indvidual to contribute to the states well being, or in some states speak out against the state.(go burn a french flag in france and see how much "freedom of speech people really have there)

have you ever burned a French flag in France?????

no, and i would not want to.

you are talking out of your ass

actually what i said was true, the legislation was in the new crime bill. is this your special way of saying it is not?

let's play a game

you give me a freedom that you enjoy in the "land of the free" and that I don't have in the evil "socialist dicatorship" where I live

i have never said belguim was a socialist dictatorship, in fact i never said anything about belgium at all. the dictatorships i reffered to were germany and russia in the early-mid 20th century. can you tell me how belgium is relevent to the conversation?

 

[laserburn]

I now this thread is a bit stale but as a guy that lived in comunism I might shed some light on the subject. I am sorry for my spelling errors.
Comunism offered a much more equal opportunities to all the youngsters in schools. Education was free and more-less everybody could finish at least highschool. Collage education was also free, but if there were no universities in your town not everyone could afford sending their kids away.
Were grades important? Well, yes and no. Higher average score was usualy a plus, but it was always more important who do you know than what you know. Jobs were often given to people with strongest "connections". Membership in a comunist party was also a plus, members would quickly rise in the hierarchy.
Job security was compleate. There was nothing you could do, short of beating your boss to death, to lose position in a government firm (and they all belonged to government). So there were a lot of manipulations and stealings. Government appointed menagers (direktori) were the worse. Coruption was everywere, but it wasn't visible at first glance.
I am talking about Yugoslavia here, I don't know much about what was it like in other comunist contries.

 

[Czar]

Were grades important? Well, yes and no. Higher average score was usualy a plus, but it was always more important who do you know than what you know. Jobs were often given to people with strongest "connections". Membership in a comunist party was also a plus, members would quickly rise in the hierarchy.

hey, just like everywhere else

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: freegeeks
socialism(as practiced in the real world) does offer the indvidual limited freedom, as long as that freedom does not take from the primary responsibility of the indvidual to contribute to the states well being, or in some states speak out against the state.(go burn a french flag in france and see how much "freedom of speech people really have there)

have you ever burned a French flag in France?????

no, and i would not want to.

you are talking out of your ass

actually what i said was true, the legislation was in the new crime bill. is this your special way of saying it is not?

let's play a game

you give me a freedom that you enjoy in the "land of the free" and that I don't have in the evil "socialist dicatorship" where I live

i have never said belguim was a socialist dictatorship, in fact i never said anything about belgium at all. the dictatorships i reffered to were germany and russia in the early-mid 20th century. can you tell me how belgium is relevent to the conversation?

actually what i said was true, the legislation was in the new crime bill. is this your special way of saying it is not?

it's my special way to say that the left parties have appealed the new crime law and there is no decision yet about this issue, so yes for the moment you are talking out of your ass

i have never said belguim was a socialist dictatorship, in fact i never said anything about belgium at all. the dictatorships i reffered to were germany and russia in the early-mid 20th century. can you tell me how belgium is relevent to the conversation?

nice - so in this thread when you are referring to "socialism" you mean the dictatorships and with "capitalism" you mean the modern USA. Djjeee now I got it. You are comparing apples with oranges.

Why don't you make a comparison between a modern European socialist country and the USA??? Afraid that your "land of the free" mantra is just what is -------> bs

you know I'm going to start my own thread about this subject - I'm going to compare the america of the 15th century with the modern day Finland

 

[Alexadi]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Alexadi
Shad0hawK, a q for ya:
Why should capitalism succeed?
It alwais fails into some pseudo socialistic governmental intervention soup. Maybe there's a reason for it.
Like why should it be in the best interests of the people that work in the government to apply libertarian economy?
And why should it be most profitable for businesses to no seek government intervention?
And why should an individual not prefer to be subsidised by the state if the possibility arises?

Libertarians always point to communism as the great big evil and explain how freedom, property rights and free entreprise would bring so much better results.
It doesn't because it ignores the individual and his choices. It's the old "if only people would..." We are all free riders.

it is not a matter of "should" succeed. it is a matter of "does" succeed, for the same reason natural selection works in nature. as far a capitalism "failing into pseudo socialism" it is socialistic elements already in the government that interfere with free trade.

as far as your question about "libertarian economy"? that would depend on how your defining it. a capitalisitic economy is in the best interest of the indvidual and people as a whole because it promotes competency, those who are best able to succeed, succeed on thier own merit a competent craftsman will produce products of higher quality with less production costs than an incompetant craftsman. the end user ALWAYS benefits from competant craftsmanship.

if the government intervens in business(i assume your tlaking about tarrifs and such) it is to protect a business that is being outdone by it's comeptition overseas bringing to severe financial difficulty. if your heart lies with that particular business it can be viewed as beneficial, but in the perpective of the end user what the government has done was take a chaper, maybe better product and made it more expensive for them to buy. many consumers would not view these as beneficial to them.

a profitable business do not need government intervention...it is already sucessful. some may want government assistance to open new markets, but i do not see how this could be defined as socialistic.

can you specify exactly what type of subsidation your referring to?

as far as communism being a failure and "evil" it is not my opinion, it is historical fact. for example, chinas economy has improved the more it implements capitalistic concepts, also it now has hong kong's economic figures added to it's own.

it seems to me capitalism is not bialed out by "psuedo-socialism" but that socialism is bailed out by "psuedo capitalism"

it would also be nice to see you answer the same questions.

Your entire argument rests on consumer's wishes. Yeah, consumers want competition, want efficiency, want low prices and high quality.
Capitalism delivers this. No arguing on that from me.
However the same people are both consumers and WORKERS.

As workers they desire maximum profit with minimum effort. They want a bigger salary, less work hours, more social protection, less education costs, less worry for their jobs, no new qualifications and God forbid having to start again in another less paid job in another field.
Ergo, they join a union, vote for government intervention and complain about globalisation.

It happens everywhere, in France in China and in USA, it's human nature.

Same thing with businesses. They want profit. If they have to be competitive and best serve consumer's wishes, fine. If they can gain the same profit by pressuring for government protection and intervention, that's fine with them also.

Now the government. They want profit also. Staying in power and getting donations is a good way to get that profit. Maximum payments from businesses, maximum payments from interest groups( all sorts of lobby groups), and 50.1% votes in the next elections. That's all they want.
Capitalism does not answer these needs, and therefore it is not chosen.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Alexadi

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Alexadi
Shad0hawK, a q for ya:
Why should capitalism succeed?
It alwais fails into some pseudo socialistic governmental intervention soup. Maybe there's a reason for it.
Like why should it be in the best interests of the people that work in the government to apply libertarian economy?
And why should it be most profitable for businesses to no seek government intervention?
And why should an individual not prefer to be subsidised by the state if the possibility arises?

Libertarians always point to communism as the great big evil and explain how freedom, property rights and free entreprise would bring so much better results.
It doesn't because it ignores the individual and his choices. It's the old "if only people would..." We are all free riders.

it is not a matter of "should" succeed. it is a matter of "does" succeed, for the same reason natural selection works in nature. as far a capitalism "failing into pseudo socialism" it is socialistic elements already in the government that interfere with free trade.

as far as your question about "libertarian economy"? that would depend on how your defining it. a capitalisitic economy is in the best interest of the indvidual and people as a whole because it promotes competency, those who are best able to succeed, succeed on thier own merit a competent craftsman will produce products of higher quality with less production costs than an incompetant craftsman. the end user ALWAYS benefits from competant craftsmanship.

if the government intervens in business(i assume your tlaking about tarrifs and such) it is to protect a business that is being outdone by it's comeptition overseas bringing to severe financial difficulty. if your heart lies with that particular business it can be viewed as beneficial, but in the perpective of the end user what the government has done was take a chaper, maybe better product and made it more expensive for them to buy. many consumers would not view these as beneficial to them.

a profitable business do not need government intervention...it is already sucessful. some may want government assistance to open new markets, but i do not see how this could be defined as socialistic.

can you specify exactly what type of subsidation your referring to?

as far as communism being a failure and "evil" it is not my opinion, it is historical fact. for example, chinas economy has improved the more it implements capitalistic concepts, also it now has hong kong's economic figures added to it's own.

it seems to me capitalism is not bialed out by "psuedo-socialism" but that socialism is bailed out by "psuedo capitalism"

it would also be nice to see you answer the same questions.

Your entire argument rests on consumer's wishes. Yeah, consumers want competition, want efficiency, want low prices and high quality.
Capitalism delivers this. No arguing on that from me.
However the same people are both consumers and WORKERS.

As workers they desire maximum profit with minimum effort. They want a bigger salary, less work hours, more social protection, less education costs, less worry for their jobs, no new qualifications and God forbid having to start again in another less paid job in another field.
Ergo, they join a union, vote for government intervention and complain about globalisation.

It happens everywhere, in France in China and in USA, it's human nature.

Same thing with businesses. They want profit. If they have to be competitive and best serve consumer's wishes, fine. If they can gain the same profit by pressuring for government protection and intervention, that's fine with them also.

Now the government. They want profit also. Staying in power and getting donations is a good way to get that profit. Maximum payments from businesses, maximum payments from interest groups( all sorts of lobby groups), and 50.1% votes in the next elections. That's all they want.
Capitalism does not answer these needs, and therefore it is not chosen.

Very good post Alex. You lightly touched on the core of the U.S. problem of the Lobbyists (AKA Corporations) owning the Government. Is this the case in the other Countries you mentioned?

Have the Corporations (maybe even some of the same Corporations based in the U.S.) taken over those Country Governments as well? I have never been off this rock so I do not know the situation over there.

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Alexadi
Why should capitalism succeed?

it is not a matter of "should" succeed. it is a matter of "does" succeed, for the same reason natural selection works in nature.

Too bad your analogy doesn't stand up to the substance of modern evolutionary science. There are plenty of documented instances in nature where a tendency to make altruistic sacrifices made for a group is selected over a pure self-interest tendency. Many of the most successful species (including Humans) are competitive because they have social structures that function to protect the group rather than "always looking out for #1". To characterize nature as a universal example of the success of capitalistic/individualistic structures is patently false.

can you tell me how belgium is relevent to the conversation?

How about your original post in this thread:

name one modern country where the end result of socialism/communism has proven beneficial overall to the welfare of the people and give historical evidence.

 

[Alexadi]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Very good post Alex. You lightly touched on the core of the U.S. problem of the Lobbyists (AKA Corporations) owning the Government. Is this the case in the other Countries you mentioned?

Have the Corporations (maybe even some of the same Corporations based in the U.S.) taken over those Country Governments as well? I have never been off this rock so I do not know the situation over there.

It's a little different in Europe. It is for example considered normal for the government to protect, aid and favor local firms. And local means local to that specific country. And there are 25+ countries. It's hard to say that a firm owns the government, it's more appropriate to say it inherites the government. It's like a birth right. Add to that the state owning shares in big corporations (like Renault) and you see the situation.

Quite a diiference from: yeah, that firm is from Idaho and that one is from Texas, big deal.

I mean: they had to go through decades of talks to agree that it's not desirable for a government to pass laws that forbid foreign competition in some field deemed "important" and it's not really ok to subsidize and erase debts of local firms activating in domains deemed somehow "crucial".
Giving up government purchases of local-only goods and services proved quite a bitter pill to swallow for european governments.