PDA

View Full Version : Correcting Misconceptions About Socialism



Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 02:56 AM
I ran into a character limit with this, so unfortunately I can't post the whole thing here. I'd encourage everyone to go to my blog (http://thephilosopherguardian.blogspot.com/2013/10/correcting-misconceptions-about.html) to view the post in its entirety and post your questions or comments here.

Essentially, I've taken the seven biggest misconceptions about socialism and explained in full why they are false. These misconceptions are:

Socialism will inevitably become a Nazi-like, genocidal dictatorship!

Socialism is Marxism!

Socialism will produce a society of unproductive, lazy sloths!

Socialists want to confiscate your property!

Socialism won't work because it ignores human nature!

Socialists hate your religion and want it abolished!

So, what's the difference between socialism and capitalism, exactly?

Questions? Comments?

kilgram
10-13-2013, 05:40 AM
Socialists want your religion abolished is true.

Socialists want to expropriaite your property is true.

Edit:

I answered this from my mobile and I want to add information to my affirmations.

Socialists want your regligion abolished is true. But it does not mean that they want to ban it, but yes that most of socialists considere religion as another authoritarian force anti-freedom, and for this reason is considered that must be abolished.

Let's take some example of non-marxist socialists, for example the Anarchist Bakunin, he considered the religion as one of the biggest harmful things that have ever existed and a chain. Even he has a quote that says: "If god existed he should be murdered".

About the second affirmation, I agree with the clarification that Green Arrow did, it only refers to the means of production.

Mr Happy
10-13-2013, 06:28 AM
American conservatives see themselves as self-made and self-reliant. Any hint of help or reliance on the govt is seen as weak, lazy and freedom crushing. None of it is true of course...

Libhater
10-13-2013, 07:08 AM
American conservatives see themselves as self-made and self-reliant. Any hint of help or reliance on the govt is seen as weak, lazy and freedom crushing. None of it is true of course...

All of it is true, of course.

patrickt
10-13-2013, 07:15 AM
I ran into a character limit with this, so unfortunately I can't post the whole thing here. I'd encourage everyone to go to my blog (http://thephilosopherguardian.blogspot.com/2013/10/correcting-misconceptions-about.html) to view the post in its entirety and post your questions or comments here.

Essentially, I've taken the seven biggest misconceptions about socialism and explained in full why they are false. These misconceptions are:

Socialism will inevitably become a Nazi-like, genocidal dictatorship!

Socialism is Marxism!

Socialism will produce a society of unproductive, lazy sloths!

Socialists want to confiscate your property!

Socialism won't work because it ignores human nature!

Socialists hate your religion and want it abolished!

So, what's the difference between socialism and capitalism, exactly?

Questions? Comments?

It isn't inevitable it will be Nazi-like but it does always seem to become a tyranny.

Of course, it makes lazy deadbeats who don't have to work and won't.

Of course, they take your property. We're all sharecroppers now and the socialists want us to be serfs.

Socialism doesn't ignore human nature but it does reward the worst of human nature.

Socialists are against anything, including religion, that might remotely challenge the State. They will tolerate a government-approved religion.

And, in Socialist countries your children belong to the state. You're wishes for your children are secondary or not considered at all.

patrickt
10-13-2013, 07:16 AM
American conservatives see themselves as self-made and self-reliant. Any hint of help or reliance on the govt is seen as weak, lazy and freedom crushing. None of it is true of course...

Many are self-made and self-reliant. They see government as having a proper role but running your life isn't the role government should have. Liberals who have no sense of responsibility can't understand any of it, of course. The State will give them everything and demand nothing, from them. Pitiful, isn't it.

kilgram
10-13-2013, 07:41 AM
It isn't inevitable it will be Nazi-like but it does always seem to become a tyranny.

Of course, it makes lazy deadbeats who don't have to work and won't.

Of course, they take your property. We're all sharecroppers now and the socialists want us to be serfs.

Socialism doesn't ignore human nature but it does reward the worst of human nature.

Socialists are against anything, including religion, that might remotely challenge the State. They will tolerate a government-approved religion.

And, in Socialist countries your children belong to the state. You're wishes for your children are secondary or not considered at all.
We are now serfs. Sorry to desillusionate you.

Capitalism reward the worst of human nature: violence, egotism, slave masters...

They recover the property that was stolen by capitalists. The property of the means of production is of everybody, not by a guy that for x reasons(normally dirty) has a lot of money and buys the means of production.

Alyosha
10-13-2013, 09:47 AM
Socialists want your religion abolished is true.

Socialists want to expropriaite your property is true.

Edit:

I answered this from my mobile and I want to add information to my affirmations.

Socialists want your regligion abolished is true. But it does not mean that they want to ban it, but yes that most of socialists considere religion as another authoritarian force anti-freedom, and for this reason is considered that must be abolished.

Let's take some example of non-marxist socialists, for example the Anarchist Bakunin, he considered the religion as one of the biggest harmful things that have ever existed and a chain. Even he has a quote that says: "If god existed he should be murdered".

About the second affirmation, I agree with the clarification that @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868) did, it only refers to the means of production.

Green Arrow and kilgram

if it is true that socialism wants religion abolished, then whatever Russell Brand calls socialism would be called "what"? What's the name for that? Just spirituality?

Alyosha
10-13-2013, 09:48 AM
We are now serfs. Sorry to desillusionate you.

Capitalism reward the worst of human nature: violence, egotism, slave masters...

They recover the property that was stolen by capitalists. The property of the means of production is of everybody, not by a guy that for x reasons(normally dirty) has a lot of money and buys the means of production.

This is generalizing. No human is a devil or angel. Goldman Sachs has done hideous evil things, but the capitalist who runs my pizza parlor has not. The hippie commune down the road does great things, the socialists who dragged my uncle away for reeducation did not.

kilgram
10-13-2013, 09:56 AM
@Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868) and @kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=867)

if it is true that socialism wants religion abolished, then whatever Russell Brand calls socialism would be called "what"? What's the name for that? Just spirituality?
There are some Socialist brands that are religious and have tolerance of it, like the Theology of Liberation and in the Anarchist world Tolstoy, but they are a minority.

I repeat, in the anarchist ideas is believed that the system itself would finish all religions. The system would leave unnecesary the religion, and people would see the religion as mind chains and they voluntarily abandon it.

However, there is no problem with some spirituality if people chooses to believe in something spiritual.

kilgram
10-13-2013, 09:58 AM
This is generalizing. No human is a devil or angel. Goldman Sachs has done hideous evil things, but the capitalist who runs my pizza parlor has not. The hippie commune down the road does great things, the socialists who dragged my uncle away for reeducation did not.
Generalizations are answered by generalizations, and more when I answer from my mobile phone, that were my answers.

Alyosha
10-13-2013, 09:59 AM
There are some Socialist brands that are religious and have tolerance of it, like the Theology of Liberation and in the Anarchist world Tolstoy, but they are a minority.

Then what would you call them?

Dr. Who
10-13-2013, 11:04 AM
Belief in God or spirituality has never been a problem, but religions have and will always be inherently divisive institutions. Adherents of these institutions believe that their version is innately superior to the rest, and it's that feeling of superiority that ultimately creates problems in the world. At its most extreme, religion is used as a sword to smite others, although the real agenda is to conserve to one group the lion's share of resources at the expense of others. In other iterations it is and has been used to preserve a class system. Many of the more populous religions have become wealthy and powerful political entities with the ability to influence government. The history of man is littered with the bodies and blood of the victims of religion. Since socialism relies upon the good faith behavior of people, one to another, it is no small wonder that religion is viewed with scepticism.

AmazonTania
10-13-2013, 11:14 AM
I ran into a character limit with this, so unfortunately I can't post the whole thing here. I'd encourage everyone to go to my blog (http://thephilosopherguardian.blogspot.com/2013/10/correcting-misconceptions-about.html) to view the post in its entirety and post your questions or comments here.

Essentially, I've taken the seven biggest misconceptions about socialism and explained in full why they are false. These misconceptions are:

Socialism will inevitably become a Nazi-like, genocidal dictatorship!

Socialism is Marxism!

Socialism will produce a society of unproductive, lazy sloths!

Socialists want to confiscate your property!

Socialism won't work because it ignores human nature!

Socialists hate your religion and want it abolished!

So, what's the difference between socialism and capitalism, exactly?

Questions? Comments?

1. The only way to actually impose Socialism is through the use of force. No socialist regime has every worked which is voluntary.

2. There are many different variants of Socialism (true socialism anyway) which exist.

3. That's generally the premise for those who hate socialism, but advocates of the theory would disagree.

4. Under socialism, only private property is abolished. Not personal property.

5. That's correct. It won't work because it ignores human nature.

6. That's been the premise other Socialist regimes, but it's not exactly true.

kilgram
10-13-2013, 11:15 AM
Then what would you call them?
Socialists, too.

But saying that Socialists don't want the abolition of religion is fault to the truth. It is only a partial truth. Also saying that Socialists want the abolition of the religion is a partial truth.

Chris
10-13-2013, 11:34 AM
The theory of socialism has two implementations. One local, the other global, or at least national.

Local implementations we don't hear so much about. They might be the German freethinker settlements in south central Texas in the 1800s. They might be a small cooperative of farmers following the ideas of Robert Owen. They might be a small parecon firm like Valve. But how many of these have you heard of?

No, what you hear about are the national implementations aimed at global domination, communism, and, following Hayek, nazism and fascism. The idea of these statist regimes is to guide society from capitalism to a socialist state, but one power is attained, under any system of government, it is never relinquished voluntarily.

Because that's what we hear about, that is the connotation most associated with socialism.



Difference between socialism and capitalism? Well here we have the same problem, capitalism has two associations, one with corporatism and one with the free market. To me though the one factor distinguishing socialism from free-market capitalism is one adheres public property and the other private property. --Corporatism is not about private property, not about the economic means of attain what one wants, but the political means to that, which, by taxation or regulation, is theft. So I'm not sure there is any association between corporatism and free-market capitalism. In fact there's little difference in terms of the collusion of government and business between coporatism and the statist forms of socialism.


Back to the problem of not hearing much about the local version(s) of socialism, what we also don't hear much of is what it is. The OP addresses what it is not, but not what it is. Marxist socialism suffers the same problem as he never defined what following statist socialism would follow as a socialist society. Marx is just a comparison. The point is little is know specifically what even a local socialist community would be like. --Much follows from the premise of private property for the free market.

Mister D
10-13-2013, 11:51 AM
Belief in God or spirituality has never been a problem, but religions have and will always be inherently divisive institutions. Adherents of these institutions believe that their version is innately superior to the rest, and it's that feeling of superiority that ultimately creates problems in the world. At its most extreme, religion is used as a sword to smite others, although the real agenda is to conserve to one group the lion's share of resources at the expense of others. In other iterations it is and has been used to preserve a class system. Many of the more populous religions have become wealthy and powerful political entities with the ability to influence government. The history of man is littered with the bodies and blood of the victims of religion. Since socialism relies upon the good faith behavior of people, one to another, it is no small wonder that religion is viewed with scepticism.

You seem to believe that humanity was somehow united until one day religion came along and created all these barriers. Is that correct?

Dr. Who
10-13-2013, 11:59 AM
You seem to believe that humanity was somehow united until one day religion came along and created all these barriers. Is that correct?
I didn't say that. Humanity has had religion in one form or another since the beginning of time and it has always been used by its leaders as a weapon against non-believers.

Guerilla
10-13-2013, 12:00 PM
So when you look at all the arguments against socialism, the common denominator has to do with human nature and that socialism, through the state has to force us to be socialist.

But the people who are against socialism only look at the last 100 years for all their evidence. But they completely ignore the millennia that humanity has lived and evolved in socialist style communities. Mostly small groups, or tribes, or villages, that shared all their resources and they all produced for the community. Wouldn't it make the most sense to describe humans as actually being more socialistic creatures by history alone?

Dr. Who
10-13-2013, 12:04 PM
Socialism has failed to work on a large scale, because in large numbers humans are not humane. It is an almost familial relationship between people that allows them to care about one other. When people regard each other as nameless strangers, they tend to consider their own needs above others.

Mister D
10-13-2013, 12:05 PM
I didn't say that. Humanity has had religion in one form or another since the beginning of time and it has always been used by its leaders as a weapon against non-believers.

Religion, particularly the universal religions of salvation, have done far more to unite human beings than to divide them. That's not to say individuals in positions of influence have always been men of good character but you really do seem to suggest that religion itself is not a good thing.

Chris
10-13-2013, 12:05 PM
So when you look at all the arguments against socialism, the common denominator has to do with human nature and that socialism, through the state has to force us to be socialist.

But the people who are against socialism only look at the last 100 years for all their evidence. But they completely ignore the millennia that humanity has lived and evolved in socialist style communities. Mostly small groups, or tribes, or villages, that shared all their resources and they all produced for the community. Wouldn't it make the most sense to describe humans as actually being more socialistic creatures by history alone?

Sounds as anachronistic as saying those millennia of specialization and trade, cooperation and competition were free market. Socialism and capitalism are fairly modern ideas.

Mister D
10-13-2013, 12:06 PM
Sounds as anachronistic as saying those millennia of specialization and trade, cooperation and competition were free market. Socialism and capitalism are fairly modern ideas.

Agreed.

Codename Section
10-13-2013, 12:09 PM
Belief in God or spirituality has never been a problem, but religions have and will always be inherently divisive institutions. Adherents of these institutions believe that their version is innately superior to the rest, and it's that feeling of superiority that ultimately creates problems in the world. At its most extreme, religion is used as a sword to smite others, although the real agenda is to conserve to one group the lion's share of resources at the expense of others. In other iterations it is and has been used to preserve a class system. Many of the more populous religions have become wealthy and powerful political entities with the ability to influence government. The history of man is littered with the bodies and blood of the victims of religion. Since socialism relies upon the good faith behavior of people, one to another, it is no small wonder that religion is viewed with scepticism.

You can make this argument for government, too. There have always been wars over land, gold, or slights and government spearheading them.

Maybe we should try doing without government?

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 12:14 PM
Socialists want your religion abolished is true.

Socialists want your regligion abolished is true. But it does not mean that they want to ban it, but yes that most of socialists considere religion as another authoritarian force anti-freedom, and for this reason is considered that must be abolished.

My point was that they don't want it forcibly abolished via "government" or what have you. But you are wrong, not all socialists want that. There are entire branches of socialist philosophy with a religious basis. Russell Brand and myself are religious socialists.


Socialists want to expropriaite your property is true.

About the second affirmation, I agree with the clarification that @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868) did, it only refers to the means of production.

But that's not "your" property, as in everyone's property, that's society's property that has been expropriated FIRST by the top.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 12:15 PM
It isn't inevitable it will be Nazi-like but it does always seem to become a tyranny.

Of course, it makes lazy deadbeats who don't have to work and won't.

Of course, they take your property. We're all sharecroppers now and the socialists want us to be serfs.

Socialism doesn't ignore human nature but it does reward the worst of human nature.

Socialists are against anything, including religion, that might remotely challenge the State. They will tolerate a government-approved religion.

And, in Socialist countries your children belong to the state. You're wishes for your children are secondary or not considered at all.

So you didn't actually read the post explaining all of that. If you had, you'd see that you're wrong. Socialism cannot exist with a state.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 12:17 PM
@Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868) and @kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=867)

if it is true that socialism wants religion abolished, then whatever Russell Brand calls socialism would be called "what"? What's the name for that? Just spirituality?

It isn't. Kilgram has a bad habit of assuming all socialists agree with him. There's nothing in socialism that demands the abolition of religion, that is the personal opinion of some socialists in history. Gerrard Winstanley was a Christian socialist.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 12:20 PM
1. The only way to actually impose Socialism is through the use of force. No socialist regime has every worked which is voluntary.

2. There are many different variants of Socialism (true socialism anyway) which exist.

3. That's generally the premise for those who hate socialism, but advocates of the theory would disagree.

4. Under socialism, only private property is abolished. Not personal property.

5. That's correct. It won't work because it ignores human nature.

6. That's been the premise other Socialist regimes, but it's not exactly true.

When you say "socialist regimes," you leave out 99% of socialist philosophy in favor of a small minority. That's hardly fair, especially since pre-Lenin, there was NO socialist "state" or "regime" but many socialist systems.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 12:23 PM
The theory of socialism has two implementations. One local, the other global, or at least national.

Local implementations we don't hear so much about. They might be the German freethinker settlements in south central Texas in the 1800s. They might be a small cooperative of farmers following the ideas of Robert Owen. They might be a small parecon firm like Valve. But how many of these have you heard of?

No, what you hear about are the national implementations aimed at global domination, communism, and, following Hayek, nazism and fascism. The idea of these statist regimes is to guide society from capitalism to a socialist state, but one power is attained, under any system of government, it is never relinquished voluntarily.

Because that's what we hear about, that is the connotation most associated with socialism.



Difference between socialism and capitalism? Well here we have the same problem, capitalism has two associations, one with corporatism and one with the free market. To me though the one factor distinguishing socialism from free-market capitalism is one adheres public property and the other private property. --Corporatism is not about private property, not about the economic means of attain what one wants, but the political means to that, which, by taxation or regulation, is theft. So I'm not sure there is any association between corporatism and free-market capitalism. In fact there's little difference in terms of the collusion of government and business between coporatism and the statist forms of socialism.


Back to the problem of not hearing much about the local version(s) of socialism, what we also don't hear much of is what it is. The OP addresses what it is not, but not what it is. Marxist socialism suffers the same problem as he never defined what following statist socialism would follow as a socialist society. Marx is just a comparison. The point is little is know specifically what even a local socialist community would be like. --Much follows from the premise of private property for the free market.

That's my next post, what socialism is. I just wanted to dispel the false understandings first. Looks like it's going to be more difficult than I thought.

AmazonTania
10-13-2013, 12:23 PM
When you say "socialist regimes," you leave out 99% of socialist philosophy in favor of a small minority. That's hardly fair, especially since pre-Lenin, there was NO socialist "state" or "regime" but many socialist systems.

Lenin, Stalin, and Mao are the only examples we have to go by.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 12:23 PM
Socialism has failed to work on a large scale, because in large numbers humans are not humane. It is an almost familial relationship between people that allows them to care about one other. When people regard each other as nameless strangers, they tend to consider their own needs above others.

And my point is that it's not supposed to work on a large scale.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 12:24 PM
Lenin, Stalin, and Mao are the only examples we have to go by.

No, they are not. I offered several examples in the link. Did you read it?

AmazonTania
10-13-2013, 12:25 PM
And my point is that it's not supposed to work on a large scale.

Not according to Marx.

Chris
10-13-2013, 12:27 PM
That's my next post, what socialism is. I just wanted to dispel the false understandings first. Looks like it's going to be more difficult than I thought.

It's a huge marketing problem. You'll need to fashion a new image, brand. :-)

kilgram
10-13-2013, 12:31 PM
My point was that they don't want it forcibly abolished via "government" or what have you. But you are wrong, not all socialists want that. There are entire branches of socialist philosophy with a religious basis. Russell Brand and myself are religious socialists.
I am not wrong. I am partially right.

kilgram
10-13-2013, 12:32 PM
It isn't. Kilgram has a bad habit of assuming all socialists agree with him. There's nothing in socialism that demands the abolition of religion, that is the personal opinion of some socialists in history. Gerrard Winstanley was a Christian socialist.
It is a position of most of the best known socialists in history like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Marx...

Religion has been seen as a menace to freedom.

Obviously there have been Socialists like you that they don't want to abolish religion and don't have troubles with it.

kilgram
10-13-2013, 12:35 PM
Lenin, Stalin, and Mao are the only examples we have to go by.
And also we have examples like Bakunin, Malatesta, Makhno and others as opposition to your idea.

AmazonTania
10-13-2013, 12:39 PM
And also we have examples like Bakunin, Malatesta, Makhno and others as opposition to your idea.

Their ideas have never been tried nor implemented. They cannot be used as a benchmark.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 12:52 PM
Not according to Marx.

Marx didn't come to socialism until 200 years after the first known socialists, so he is not the standard.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 12:55 PM
It is a position of most of the best known socialists in history like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Marx...

You are using the same logic as our critics in forcing us to accept statists like Stalin into our ranks. It doesn't matter what they believed, there are many more who disagreed.


Religion has been seen as a menace to freedom.

Obviously there have been Socialists like you that they don't want to abolish religion and don't have troubles with it.

That's my point. Regardless, my point is also that socialists like you don't want to force people to abandon their religions. You just think it's a natural product of socialist society that will happen over time without force.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 12:56 PM
Their ideas have never been tried nor implemented. They cannot be used as a benchmark.

Yes, they have. Again, did you not read the link in my OP? I mentioned several. There have been FAR more applications of true socialism than there have been statist applications.

Chris
10-13-2013, 01:04 PM
Yes, they have. Again, did you not read the link in my OP? I mentioned several. There have been FAR more applications of true socialism than there have been statist applications.

You're running into a problem of arguing a no true Scotsman. I don't like the association of capitalism with corporatism/crony capitalism, but I can't just reject it, must argue against it and for the free market. History has generally shown the ugly side of socialism, and that's what people are rejecting.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 01:07 PM
You're running into a problem of arguing a no true Scotsman. I don't like the association of capitalism with corporatism/crony capitalism, but I can't just reject it, must argue against it and for the free market. History has generally shown the ugly side of socialism, and that's what people are rejecting.

I'm not arguing that Lenin and Stalin and the like didn't have socialist beliefs. I'm arguing that by being statist, they are Marxists, not typical socialists. Marxism was a perversion of original socialism. It's more a hybrid than anything else.

Besides, even if they were socialists, there is a far greater wealth of Bakunins and Winstanleys than Stalins and Lenins, and their societies worked perfectly while the Stalins and the Lenins failed. It's Stalin and Lenin that prove my argument for original socialism more than anything else.

AmazonTania
10-13-2013, 01:08 PM
Yes, they have. Again, did you not read the link in my OP? I mentioned several. There have been FAR more applications of true socialism than there have been statist applications.

There is very little evidence in your source that there ideas have any implementation.

AmazonTania
10-13-2013, 01:12 PM
Marx didn't come to socialism until 200 years after the first known socialists, so he is not the standard.

There is no set standard of the idea of socialism. They all consist of different variants.

However, Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism and Maoism is the closet variant which has ever existed, and they're generally sub-variants of Marxism.

Chris
10-13-2013, 01:16 PM
I'm not arguing that Lenin and Stalin and the like didn't have socialist beliefs. I'm arguing that by being statist, they are Marxists, not typical socialists. Marxism was a perversion of original socialism. It's more a hybrid than anything else.

Besides, even if they were socialists, there is a far greater wealth of Bakunins and Winstanleys than Stalins and Lenins, and their societies worked perfectly while the Stalins and the Lenins failed. It's Stalin and Lenin that prove my argument for original socialism more than anything else.



Without definition, socialism is more political than economic then, politically voluntarist or politically statist.

Guerilla
10-13-2013, 01:34 PM
Socialism has failed to work on a large scale, because in large numbers humans are not humane. It is an almost familial relationship between people that allows them to care about one other. When people regard each other as nameless strangers, they tend to consider their own needs above others.

Well that's why we should not implement it in such a fashion that it includes millions of people. Smaller socialist groups trading amongst each other, much like early humanity, would be more ideal.

Smaller groups also makes it less likely that authoritarian rule will arise, since small groups will not need much organization to coordinate, unlike millions across a large area would need.

kilgram
10-13-2013, 01:36 PM
Their ideas have never been tried nor implemented. They cannot be used as a benchmark.
Their ideas have been tried and implemented. And they only lost to the force of the enemies. Force that surpassed them by 10 to 1.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 01:38 PM
Without definition, socialism is more political than economic then, politically voluntarist or politically statist.

I don't think I understand. Rephrase?

Chris
10-13-2013, 01:39 PM
Well that's why we should not implement it in such a fashion that it includes millions of people. Smaller socialist groups trading amongst each other, much like early humanity, would be more ideal.

Smaller groups also makes it less likely that authoritarian rule will arise, since small groups will not need much organization to coordinate, unlike millions across a large area would need.


Smaller socialist groups trading amongst each other

So small socialisms in a larger free market. As evidenced by parecon firms like Valve, that seems to work.


Smaller groups also makes it less likely that authoritarian rule will arise, since small groups will not need much organization to coordinate, unlike millions across a large area would need.

Until two or more groups decide to cooperate in competition with one group. Then it's like two wolves and a sheep arguing what's for lunch.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 01:40 PM
Their ideas have been tried and implemented. And they only lost to the force of the enemies. Force that surpassed them by 10 to 1.

Even that was only sometimes. There are socialist societies today modeled after Fourier's Phalansteres.

Chris
10-13-2013, 01:42 PM
I don't think I understand. Rephrase?

There seems to be no economic definition for socialism. Thus by default, to fill the economic vacuum, it becomes political. As such it can be voluntaryist or it can be statist. Original socialists may have favored voluntaryism, later ones, like Marx, favored statism, at least as a transition.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 01:48 PM
There seems to be no economic definition for socialism. Thus by default, to fill the economic vacuum, it becomes political. As such it can be voluntaryist or it can be statist. Original socialists may have favored voluntaryism, later ones, like Marx, favored statism, at least as a transition.

I'll get into the economic aspect in my next post, as well as the government aspect. But there is a very strong economic philosophy in it, such as the principle of distribution.

Guerilla
10-13-2013, 01:49 PM
So small socialisms in a larger free market. As evidenced by parecon firms like Valve, that seems to work.



Until two or more groups decide to cooperate in competition with one group. Then it's like two wolves and a sheep arguing what's for lunch.

Parecon, exactly. But more community based.

Do you not think people can organize to defend themselves? They can at least make alliances with other regions for defense the way the others made an alliance to attack.

AmazonTania
10-13-2013, 01:50 PM
Their ideas have been tried and implemented. And they only lost to the force of the enemies. Force that surpassed them by 10 to 1.

When? It's clearly not very well documented.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 01:51 PM
When? It's clearly not very well documented.

I pointed out the Diggers and the Phalansteres in my post. That's only two of many.

Chris
10-13-2013, 01:51 PM
Parecon, exactly. But more community based.

Do you not think people can organize to defend themselves? They can at least make alliances with other regions for defense the way the others made an alliance to attack.

Same problem. If defense is at the community level what's to prevent two or more communities from ganging up on one? Nothing.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 01:52 PM
Same problem. If defense is at the community level what's to prevent two or more communities from ganging up on one? Nothing.

What's to prevent the one attacked community from getting help from another?

kilgram
10-13-2013, 01:53 PM
When? It's clearly not very well documented.
I always point out the Free Territory and the Revolutionary Spain.

Guerilla
10-13-2013, 01:59 PM
Same problem. If defense is at the community level what's to prevent two or more communities from ganging up on one? Nothing.

When did I say it wouldn't be a problem? Of course nothing stops 2 communities from attacking another, but I don't believe it would be as you describe it, 2 wolves and a sheep. That sheep can be packin heat, and for all we know, it's sheep friends are too. Then it's 2 wolves and 2 or 3 or 4 sheep

Alyosha
10-13-2013, 02:00 PM
I always point the Free Territory and the Revolutionary Spain.

The Free Territory was ironically taken over by socialists-collectivists. How did collectivization work out for them?

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 02:06 PM
I always point the Free Territory and the Revolutionary Spain.

We have plenty to choose from :tongue: I like to bring up the Fourierist communities because they still exist.

Chris
10-13-2013, 02:11 PM
What's to prevent the one attacked community from getting help from another?

The we have Hobbes's argument of anarchy at the community level, war one with the other. And Hobbes' argument was for a statist Leviathan.

kilgram
10-13-2013, 02:12 PM
The Free Territory was ironically taken over by socialists-collectivists. How did collectivization work out for them?
What do you mean?

Chris
10-13-2013, 02:13 PM
When did I say it wouldn't be a problem? Of course nothing stops 2 communities from attacking another, but I don't believe it would be as you describe it, 2 wolves and a sheep. That sheep can be packin heat, and for all we know, it's sheep friends are too. Then it's 2 wolves and 2 or 3 or 4 sheep

Results in the same Hobbesian argument for a statist government.

Dr. Who
10-13-2013, 02:25 PM
Religion, particularly the universal religions of salvation, have done far more to unite human beings than to divide them. That's not to say individuals in positions of influence have always been men of good character but you really do seem to suggest that religion itself is not a good thing.
It is true that I have no faith in religion. Even as a child I saw it dividing the children in my community, the Catholics vs the Protestants. When I attended Catholic school, we didn't call the local public school public, but the Protestant school. I was taught at my Catholic school that the Protestants were lesser Christians - essentially the boogie man. Fortunately my parents didn't prolong my indoctrination and by the third grade I was attending the public school and found out that the Protestant kids had similar views of the Catholics. My mother always had an issue with my learning a slightly different version of the Lord's Prayer in public school - the addition of For thine is the Kingdom, and the Power and the Glory, forever and ever - is not Catholic.

Guerilla
10-13-2013, 03:00 PM
Results in the same Hobbesian argument for a statist government.


The argument being that with no one in power some will try to take it, making constant war, correct?

Well people have power only in as much as we believe it and follow them. If we created a bunch of anarchist regions, their would need to be a firm belief within them all in their individual sovereignty. A culture would need to permeate the regions, with common core values in anti-statism, and everyone would need to understand the dangers of it.

With that type of philosophy present, I don't believe any of the regions would try to control one another. Indeed, what we speak of is not just (r)evolution from government, but a (r)evolution of the mind.

As for adjacent neighbors who have not embraced the philosophy, and seek to control, I don't know. I guess their would be war between the two ideologies, no different than what we already do today.

Chris
10-13-2013, 03:04 PM
The argument being that with no one in power some will try to take it, making constant war, correct?

Well people have power only in as much as we believe it and follow them. If we created a bunch of socialist anarchist regions, their would need to be a firm belief within them all in their individual sovereignty. A culture would need to permeate the regions, with common core values in anti-statism, and everyone would need to understand the dangers of it.

With that type of philosophy present, I don't believe any of the regions would try to control one another. Indeed, what we speak of is not just revolution from a government, but a (r)evolution of the mind.

As for adjacent neighbors who have not embraced the philosophy, and seek to control, I don't know. I guess their would be war between the two ideologies, no different than what we already do today.

IOW, you're saying it would just happen.

That, I think, is why some argue socialism ignores man's nature. Man is essentially self-interested, greedy if you want to spin it that way. Man hasn't changed from the dawn of history.

AmazonTania
10-13-2013, 03:07 PM
I always point out the Free Territory and the Revolutionary Spain.

That obviously did not work, not even to the tee... How is that considered an implementation?

AmazonTania
10-13-2013, 03:08 PM
I pointed out the Diggers and the Phalansteres in my post. That's only two of many.

Where and how was that implemented? Pointing it out is not very convincing without any benchmarks to document.

AmazonTania
10-13-2013, 03:10 PM
We have plenty to choose from :tongue: I like to bring up the Fourierist communities because they still exist.

Exactly how do you have plenty to choose from when there isn't a single case of those ideologies being implemented, even remotely.

The only case of socialism was Marxism, which was abandoned by all who have tried to implement it.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 03:16 PM
Exactly how do you have plenty to choose from when there isn't a single case of those ideologies being implemented, even remotely.

The only case of socialism was Marxism, which was abandoned by all who have tried to implement it.

I've mentioned two and kilgram has mentioned two. Methinks you're not interested in actually discussing the issue and just want to hold on to your misguided argument.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 03:17 PM
IOW, you're saying it would just happen.

That, I think, is why some argue socialism ignores man's nature. Man is essentially self-interested, greedy if you want to spin it that way. Man hasn't changed from the dawn of history.

I think man is a far more complicated creature than you give us credit for.

AmazonTania
10-13-2013, 03:19 PM
I've mentioned two and kilgram has mentioned two. Methinks you're not interested in actually discussing the issue and just want to hold on to your misguided argument.

As I have said, it's not documented very well. I'm sorry, but merely mentioning something doesn't negate that fact.

Chris
10-13-2013, 03:24 PM
This then may be another general problem with socialism and difference with free-market capitalism. From Adam Smith to Milton Friedman and beyond what economist in the mainline tradition do is discover and describe how the free market works. The Austrian School as well, albeit praxeologically, discover and describe what emerges from human action as the free market. What I'm hearing here are various definitions of what socialism ought to be and various designs from implementation. Man is lucky he can discover and describe the social order around him, but is incapable of defining and designing it. That is why various forms of statist governments, from communism that tries to control the economy, to social democracy that tries to manage it, fail.

Alyosha
10-13-2013, 03:25 PM
All attempts at involuntary socialism have turned into authoritarian and oppressive regimes. Western nations that implemented slowly have witnessed the same, incremental loss of individual liberties.

Any move towards socialism would have to be voluntary if you wished to prevent oppression.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 03:25 PM
As I have said, it's not documented very well. I'm sorry, but merely mentioning something doesn't negate that fact.

Well, it's the victors that write the history books. Those of us who choose not to force the rest of the world to follow us tend to not make the news very much.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 03:26 PM
All attempts at involuntary socialism have turned into authoritarian and oppressive regimes. Western nations that implemented slowly have witnessed the same, incremental loss of individual liberties.

Any move towards socialism would have to be voluntary if you wished to prevent oppression.

The "thanks" button disappeared, but you know I agree with this and would rep it 10 times if I could.

AmazonTania
10-13-2013, 03:33 PM
Well, it's the victors that write the history books. Those of us who choose not to force the rest of the world to follow us tend to not make the news very much.

Well, then how do we know what will work and what won't without any benchmarks to follow?

AmazonTania
10-13-2013, 03:36 PM
All attempts at involuntary socialism have turned into authoritarian and oppressive regimes. Western nations that implemented slowly have witnessed the same, incremental loss of individual liberties.

Any move towards socialism would have to be voluntary if you wished to prevent oppression.

Socialism can never be voluntary. Not for very long anyway.

Alyosha
10-13-2013, 03:36 PM
Well, then how do we know what will work and what won't without any benchmarks to follow?

A study of human nature, behavioral and cognitive sciences, and then societies like the Amish, Iceland, and even Mormon communities in isolation can show you how socialism works in voluntary measures.

When people require collaboration for their own interests, when they are not fearful of going hungry, when that collaboration is fruitful they are willing to collaborate.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 03:36 PM
Well, then how do we know what will work and what won't without any benchmarks to follow?

We have benchmarks. What do you want to know about these benchmarks, specifically?

zelmo1234
10-13-2013, 03:39 PM
We are now serfs. Sorry to desillusionate you.

Capitalism reward the worst of human nature: violence, egotism, slave masters...

They recover the property that was stolen by capitalists. The property of the means of production is of everybody, not by a guy that for x reasons(normally dirty) has a lot of money and buys the means of production.

Oh yes do tell us how those evil capitalist, have stolen the money that rightfully belongs to you for doing nothing.

Socialism does have to rely on lies of this nature that is for sure.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 03:43 PM
Oh yes do tell us how those evil capitalist, have stolen the money that rightfully belongs to you for doing nothing.

Socialism does have to rely on lies of this nature that is for sure.

I've told no lies about capitalism. I don't hate capitalism, I just don't think it's the perfect system some people pretend it is.

Chris
10-13-2013, 03:53 PM
Free-market capitalism is not claimed to be perfect, utopian, etc. It's actually quite messy, with lots of error for entrepreneurs to correct.

It's just what works better than anything man has designed.

kilgram
10-13-2013, 03:53 PM
Socialism can never be voluntary. Not for very long anyway.
Do you know any way of capitalism that has been implemented voluntarily? Because I don't.

And I've given you examples that lasted years. Obviously there are systems that the ones with power will do everything to prevent that they are implemented, and that is the "voluntary socialism".

zelmo1234
10-13-2013, 03:55 PM
Belief in God or spirituality has never been a problem, but religions have and will always be inherently divisive institutions. Adherents of these institutions believe that their version is innately superior to the rest, and it's that feeling of superiority that ultimately creates problems in the world. At its most extreme, religion is used as a sword to smite others, although the real agenda is to conserve to one group the lion's share of resources at the expense of others. In other iterations it is and has been used to preserve a class system. Many of the more populous religions have become wealthy and powerful political entities with the ability to influence government. The history of man is littered with the bodies and blood of the victims of religion. Since socialism relies upon the good faith behavior of people, one to another, it is no small wonder that religion is viewed with scepticism.

This is a little funny to talk about the good naturedness of Socialism and the mass murders of Religion?

Socialism must have an effective way to get rid of those that will not willingly submit to the state, and they must confiscate the wealth of the population, as dependency is the only want to insure the power base.

If we need to we can post the mass murders of the worlds socialist nations, but here is an article that explains why

http://jim.com/killingfields.html

Alyosha
10-13-2013, 03:55 PM
I think if we were dropped on a brand new planet that, yes, capitalism would be awesome. It would start off by pushing man to grow "extra" and come up with better methods of picking fruit or growing something. Capitalism is great for innovation.

It is terrible when aided.

Socialism is terrible for innovation, but good for survival of a tribe that is being threatened. No threat, however, and socialism produces apathy and laziness.

That's why I think the best method of controlling the worst of man's nature is to get small. When you are small enough and focused enough you can handle issues quickly.

I remember kil talking about his lazy roommates who couldn't keep a house clean. They can't keep it clean because if they don't clean he will.

Small enough groups will have "watcher" and "motivator" personalities, the larger you get they're lost.

Chris
10-13-2013, 03:55 PM
Do you know any way of capitalism that has been implemented voluntarily? Because I don't.

Free market capitalism is voluntary, corporatism is not, but is corporatism then even capitalism?

Alyosha
10-13-2013, 03:56 PM
Do you know any way of capitalism that has been implemented voluntarily? Because I don't.

The first person who had extra and wanted to trade for it was a capitalist.

AmazonTania
10-13-2013, 03:59 PM
Do you know any way of capitalism that has been implemented voluntarily? Because I don't.

Capitalism involves voluntary transactions. By definition, capitalism is voluntary.


And I've given you examples that lasted years. Obviously there are systems that the ones with power will do everything to prevent that they are implemented, and that is the "voluntary socialism".

You've given me examples of systems which have deviated from their primary goal, or were not implemented to the tee.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 03:59 PM
This is a little funny to talk about the good naturedness of Socialism and the mass murders of Religion?

Socialism must have an effective way to get rid of those that will not willingly submit to the state, and they must confiscate the wealth of the population, as dependency is the only want to insure the power base.

If we need to we can post the mass murders of the worlds socialist nations, but here is an article that explains why

http://jim.com/killingfields.html

I'd encourage you to read the link in my OP. I stand in stark opposition to that form of collectivist society.

kilgram
10-13-2013, 04:01 PM
Free-market capitalism is not claimed to be perfect, utopian, etc. It's actually quite messy, with lots of error for entrepreneurs to correct.

It's just what works better than anything man has designed.
Free market capitalism is much more utopian than socialism. First, is really utopic and faithful the invisible hand.

AmazonTania
10-13-2013, 04:01 PM
We have benchmarks. What do you want to know about these benchmarks, specifically?

Key principles which makes these ideologies what they are, how they've been implemented and what is generally required for these systems to work.

We already have this with Marxism and even social democracies. Not so much with the other variants.

Chris
10-13-2013, 04:01 PM
kilgram, give us your definition of capitalism, please.

zelmo1234
10-13-2013, 04:02 PM
So when you look at all the arguments against socialism, the common denominator has to do with human nature and that socialism, through the state has to force us to be socialist.

But the people who are against socialism only look at the last 100 years for all their evidence. But they completely ignore the millennia that humanity has lived and evolved in socialist style communities. Mostly small groups, or tribes, or villages, that shared all their resources and they all produced for the community. Wouldn't it make the most sense to describe humans as actually being more socialistic creatures by history alone?

In a small group of like minded people working together for one goal? Yes, the all for one and one for all works.

But it has never worked on a national scale to improve the lives of the population.

In the larger scale, people must be forced to submit, because my band of merry travelers might be doing way better than your band? Thus it is demanded of me to give to you. Now there is resentment, because what was all for one and one for all, is not all for one and one for all, and that other group of people down the way that want what we have produced.

Chris
10-13-2013, 04:03 PM
Free market capitalism is much more utopian than socialism. First, is really utopic and faithful the invisible hand.

How is it utopian? I just described it as very imperfect, in a way dependent on imperfection.

The invisible hand is why self-interested but voluntary exchange benefits all.

Alyosha
10-13-2013, 04:03 PM
In a small group of like minded people working together for one goal? Yes, the all for one and one for all works.

But it has never worked on a national scale to improve the lives of the population.

In the larger scale, people must be forced to submit, because my band of merry travelers might be doing way better than your band? Thus it is demanded of me to give to you. Now there is resentment, because what was all for one and one for all, is not all for one and one for all, and that other group of people down the way that want what we have produced.

Which is why humans shouldn't live in large nation states at all.

AmazonTania
10-13-2013, 04:08 PM
There is nothing wrong with living in a large state. The original thirteen colonies understood that the best way to protect one's life, liberty and happiness was to united them under one Government. The problem isn't that the nation is too large, but the lack of federalism.

kilgram
10-13-2013, 04:09 PM
@kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=867), give us your definition of capitalism, please.
Capitalism is a system based in the market and the private property where the owners of the means of production are the masters and the rest are their slaves.

zelmo1234
10-13-2013, 04:13 PM
My point was that they don't want it forcibly abolished via "government" or what have you. But you are wrong, not all socialists want that. There are entire branches of socialist philosophy with a religious basis. Russell Brand and myself are religious socialists.



But that's not "your" property, as in everyone's property, that's society's property that has been expropriated FIRST by the top.

I think that you are correct that religion and socialism can co exist? What happens however is the religion gives the population a place to turn to, and thus becomes a threat to government. this of course can't be tolerated.

And in your last statement you are correct also, because everything comes from the states or is allowed by the state, they can regulate the rewards from your labors.

For example I have a development company that produced affordable housing. I employed people in good jobs and provided a safe, energy efficient and affordable place for middle class families to live. The profits for this were and are designed to allow other members of my family the resources to pursue their dreams and of course make sure that they have that opportunity for generations to come! Because of some of the regulations of the ACA we changed that to providing luxury housing, and my cut is about the same, but it requires fewer employee's, which actually make more money each

Under socialism, the profits would be regulated, and controlled, so why put the time and effort into it? I darns sure would not be up at 4 AM every day looking over the jobs list and making sure that all of the materials needed we on hand. Why would I go to that effort.

My reward would be the same weather I completed 50 homes a year or 5?

and that is the problem with socialism.

Chris
10-13-2013, 04:14 PM
Capitalism is a system based in the market and the private property where the owners of the means of production are the masters and the rest are their slaves.

That's Marx's theory of exploitation of the worker.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 04:18 PM
Key principles which makes these ideologies what they are, how they've been implemented and what is generally required for these systems to work.

We already have this with Marxism and even social democracies. Not so much with the other variants.

Start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanst%C3%A8re). These are the Phalansteres created by Charles Fourier.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 04:20 PM
I think that you are correct that religion and socialism can co exist? What happens however is the religion gives the population a place to turn to, and thus becomes a threat to government. this of course can't be tolerated.

Except socialism can't exist in a state, so this is not a legitimate concern.

You keep bringing the state into this, but the state and socialism are not supposed to coexist.

Alyosha
10-13-2013, 04:20 PM
There is nothing wrong with living in a large state. The original thirteen colonies understood that the best way to protect one's life, liberty and happiness was to united them under one Government. The problem isn't that the nation is too large, but the lack of federalism.

Jefferson, Paine, and Sam Adams didn't agree at all. They felt the Constitution was a bad idea and wanted to keep the Articles of Confederation. It was Washington, Hamilton, and some of the others who waited until many of them were out of the country to suggest making the shift.

zelmo1234
10-13-2013, 04:21 PM
Which is why humans shouldn't live in large nation states at all.

The problem is a double edged sword.

If Code and Evil and others will be totally honest, they would admit that anarchy favors the wolves.

So the problem with small communities is when a band of brothers gets together and decided they can help?

The wolves inflict their utopia on others.

There is no perfect solution, but the founding fathers were on the right track by trying not to centralize power. to bad the lust for power in others could not be contained.

zelmo1234
10-13-2013, 04:23 PM
Capitalism is a system based in the market and the private property where the owners of the means of production are the masters and the rest are their slaves.

Then why does it produce so much wealth many and not just the ruling class under socialism

zelmo1234
10-13-2013, 04:27 PM
Except socialism can't exist in a state, so this is not a legitimate concern.

You keep bringing the state into this, but the state and socialism are not supposed to coexist.

But they always have? and that is the problem.

You see you need the state because in reading the forum, you are a very non violent person, and bless you for that it is a virtue, not a weakness.

But others myself included are not! And without the state, in the end we will become corrupt and take what we desire? It has been the way of history, and while the first and maybe even the second generations will adhere to the rules, sooner or later greed will come into play!

kilgram
10-13-2013, 04:30 PM
That's Marx's theory of exploitation of the worker.
And is it wrong?

kilgram
10-13-2013, 04:30 PM
Then why does it produce so much wealth many and not just the ruling class under socialism
Does it? Or it really does for the ruling classes.

Chris
10-13-2013, 04:33 PM
And is it wrong?


Marx was a pipedreamer just like Keynes. The owners do not compete with the workers/consumers, they compete with each other to produce what workers/consumers want.

Alyosha
10-13-2013, 04:35 PM
The problem is a double edged sword.

If Code and Evil and others will be totally honest, they would admit that anarchy favors the wolves.

So the problem with small communities is when a band of brothers gets together and decided they can help?

The wolves inflict their utopia on others.

There is no perfect solution, but the founding fathers were on the right track by trying not to centralize power. to bad the lust for power in others could not be contained.

Man is an apex predator and guns are an equalizer.

Chris
10-13-2013, 04:36 PM
Does it? Or it really does for the ruling classes.

Now you're talking corporatism. That's the antithesis of free market capitalism. We're talking at cross purposes because we're each using different definitions.

kilgram
10-13-2013, 04:46 PM
Now you're talking corporatism. That's the antithesis of free market capitalism. We're talking at cross purposes because we're each using different definitions.
Well, we are not discussing about capitalism. If you want that I further argument about it, create a thread about the misconceptions of capitalism. And I going to discuss there whatever you want about this.

This topic is about socialism and not about capitalism. However I admit that I brought the topic myself and it was my mistake.

Green Arrow
10-13-2013, 05:01 PM
But they always have? and that is the problem.

No, they have not. There are far more examples throughout history where they did not, than there are examples where they did.


You see you need the state because in reading the forum, you are a very non violent person, and bless you for that it is a virtue, not a weakness.

But others myself included are not! And without the state, in the end we will become corrupt and take what we desire? It has been the way of history, and while the first and maybe even the second generations will adhere to the rules, sooner or later greed will come into play!

I do not need the state. It is the state that has made man's nature violent and barbaric. It is the state that has made man think that force is the only way he can achieve his goals. It is the state that has made war profitable. It is the state that says greed is good. It is the state that says power is righteous and might makes right.

It is only in doing away with the evil that is the state, that we will be able to once again purge these false virtues from our natures and restore ourselves to our original, uncorrupted state. The nature of man is G-d, it is goodness.

Mainecoons
10-13-2013, 05:19 PM
And the state is a manifestation of the same human nature that prevents socialism from working consistently and/or on any significant scale.

Don't get me wrong, If it worked it would be the preferred condition of humanity. No one wants extremes of poverty and wealth and the social problems that go with it.

Realistically, your perfect socialist state probably exists--in Heaven.

kilgram
10-13-2013, 05:29 PM
And the state is a manifestation of the same human nature that prevents socialism from working consistently and/or on any significant scale.

Don't get me wrong, If it worked it would be the preferred condition of humanity. No one wants extremes of poverty and wealth and the social problems that go with it.

Realistically, your perfect socialist state probably exists--in Heaven.
Why cannot it work?

Because people like you, believe that is impossible, even when they agree that is the best system. But they prefer to live in worse conditions instead of trying something new. Well, for that is known the conservatism. Your attitude defines the best the conservatism. I'm sorry.

AmazonTania
10-13-2013, 05:35 PM
It won't work because it ignores behavior economics.

That's why...

kilgram
10-13-2013, 05:48 PM
Marx was a pipedreamer just like Keynes. The owners do not compete with the workers/consumers, they compete with each other to produce what workers/consumers want.
Are you sure about that? Because reality says the opposite.

Well, they want to produce the cheapest possible and earn the maximum. It goes against the interests of the workers, and history proves my point and the reality of today, too.

Capitalism is a system of inequality. Capitalism is a system that create two classes completely separated:

- Owners: That are the ones that have whole power in decission, they can do whatever they want. The only thing that prevent to behave even worse than today is the law, and in the past law and worker unions(when they were useful).

- Non owners: Before were the slaves, now are known as the worker class, but they are not really different from the old slaves. They are the weakest class and least influential. In this group we can find any kind of workers, from blue collars to white collars.

I don't see how in free market capitalism the workers won't suffer from the abuses of the owners. I cannot see it. And by the way, again we discuss a topic that I didn't want to discuss in this thread.

kilgram
10-13-2013, 05:52 PM
It won't work because it ignores behavior economics.

That's why...
Capitalism also ignores behaviour economics and the worst, ignore social issues.

Chris
10-13-2013, 05:53 PM
Are you sure about that? Because reality says the opposite.

Well, they want to produce the cheapest possible and earn the maximum. It goes against the interests of the workers.

Again, we're arguing cross purposes if you insist on defining capitalism in Marxist terms. If Marx were right, where Marxism today? And capitalism?

zelmo1234
10-13-2013, 05:54 PM
Does it? Or it really does for the ruling classes.

it is fairly easy to see, even with recent history.

I am not sure how old that you are, so you may not remember, but back in the 80's Reagan got into an arms race with the former USSR. In short, they went bust. And it ended the cold war, recessions set in! I don't know how much is the gospel truth, but I think there is one on here that can confirm or deny! I would take her word as I believe that she lived through some of this.

China was one of the poorest countries in the world, enter private investment and they are beginning to become an economic power house, and the standard of living is rising, be it slowly but rising for all.

Look to Greece and I believe that you said that you were from Spain (beautiful country by the way) and some of the economic problems faced with the overwhelming debt that socialism has produced.

In the USA you will here people like Common talk about how the workers are being screwed by business, but this to is a result of the socialist policies of our government. And still we are among the wealthiest people in the world! And if others will be honest, you can still make it in the USA and rise from the poor to the wealthy. nearly 80% of our millionaires are first generation. I am an example of this myself.

I believe that socialism takes away the desire to reach of excellence? After all why would I when the reward is the same.


But then they started to allow for private investment! And their economy turned.

kilgram
10-13-2013, 05:57 PM
it is fairly easy to see, even with recent history.

I am not sure how old that you are, so you may not remember, but back in the 80's Reagan got into an arms race with the former USSR. In short, they went bust. And it ended the cold war, recessions set in! I don't know how much is the gospel truth, but I think there is one on here that can confirm or deny! I would take her word as I believe that she lived through some of this.

China was one of the poorest countries in the world, enter private investment and they are beginning to become an economic power house, and the standard of living is rising, be it slowly but rising for all.

Look to Greece and I believe that you said that you were from Spain (beautiful country by the way) and some of the economic problems faced with the overwhelming debt that socialism has produced.

In the USA you will here people like Common talk about how the workers are being screwed by business, but this to is a result of the socialist policies of our government. And still we are among the wealthiest people in the world! And if others will be honest, you can still make it in the USA and rise from the poor to the wealthy. nearly 80% of our millionaires are first generation. I am an example of this myself.

I believe that socialism takes away the desire to reach of excellence? After all why would I when the reward is the same.


But then they started to allow for private investment! And their economy turned.
Again wrong. Spain is facing problems for the liberalism, policies that go against any socialist idea. Spain is falling down but not for the fault of any socialist application, for the opposite.

And well, it is not true at all. Spain is having a great recovery of capital... for the wealth people, they are earning as ever. While the people is becoming poorer. And it is exactly what they wanted to do. There is no crisis, there is expoliation; a redistribution of the wealth, from the low and middle class to the higher classes, the rich class.

Well, if you are millionare obviously you will defend this system that favours you.

Socialism works in other values. Socialism works in mutual aid, solidarity, doing good for the society... And with this values things would go better, instead of becoming rich and stepping over the others.

zelmo1234
10-13-2013, 05:59 PM
Man is an apex predator and guns are an equalizer.

And the people that can really use them well, are the true predator. For example do you think that the average Joe would have a real fighting chance against Code or Evil? As a trainer, once security contractor? Most people are going to get themselves killed if they don't spend the time to get the knowledge.

We were able to spend a lot of this week with local departments doing active shooter training, and yet the politicians made us change the course because it was not politically correct, so we trained officers to put themselves and others in danger, so they are not seen as using excessive force?

If they will tell the truth, they could get together with their brothers in arms and set such a scary example of overwhelming force that most people would submit!

kilgram
10-13-2013, 06:03 PM
Again, we're arguing cross purposes if you insist on defining capitalism in Marxist terms. If Marx were right, where Marxism today? And capitalism?
Yes, capitalism won the battle. But what I see is more poverty, less opportunities to get a job in good conditions. And every day will be harder. I see how the salaries are going down. I see how the rich people is getting richer.

I see how the mini-jobs of Germany do worse the live of many German people. I see how the unemployment is rising everywhere. In USA and Spain we have about 20-25% of unemployment. I see how the rights of the workers are being reduced in name of the free market, and how the conditions of the jobs got are worse.

I make you a bet. Do an abusive offer for a job, and you will see how many people will come to get it. It is capitalism.

AmazonTania
10-13-2013, 06:07 PM
Capitalism also ignores behaviour economics and the worst, ignore social issues.

How do you figure? In capitalism, people react to incentives, trade offs, goals and find the best way to meet those goals. The only way people can make a profit is by understanding what other people want, and behave accordingly. That's behavioral economics, and pshyocsocial as well. Socialism ignores trade offs, adverse incentives and individual goals. The only goals and incentives which exist are assumed by the collective and the community.

You probably don't understand very much about capitalism, or economics for that matter. You've just decided to react to capitalism from how other's tell you to react.

kilgram
10-13-2013, 06:11 PM
How do you figure? In capitalism, people react to incentives, trade offs, goals and find the best way to meet those goals. The only way people can make a profit is by understanding what other people want, and behave accordingly. That's behavioral economics, and pshyocsocial as well. Socialism ignores trade offs, adverse incentives and individual goals. The only goals and incentives which exist are assumed by the collective and the community.

You probably don't understand very much about capitalism, or economics for that matter. You've just decided to react to capitalism from how other's tell you to react.
I pretty understand capitalism. And also I understand humans enough to know that capitalism will be always an injust system that will create extreme poverty.

AmazonTania
10-13-2013, 06:13 PM
I pretty understand capitalism. And also I understand humans enough to know that capitalism will be always an injust system that will create extreme poverty.

The only extreme poverty I am aware of is where there was no private property rights, and rule of law (capitalism). Unless you can name a time period before the late 1700's where anyone, anywhere has ever protested poverty.

zelmo1234
10-13-2013, 06:15 PM
Again wrong. Spain is facing problems for the liberalism, policies that go against any socialist idea. Spain is falling down but not for the fault of any socialist application, for the opposite.

And well, it is not true at all. Spain is having a great recovery of capital... for the wealth people, they are earning as ever. While the people is becoming poorer. And it is exactly what they wanted to do. There is no crisis, there is expoliation; a redistribution of the wealth, from the low and middle class to the higher classes, the rich class.

Well, if you are millionare obviously you will defend this system that favours you.

Socialism works in other values. Socialism works in mutual aid, solidarity, doing good for the society... And with this values things would go better, instead of becoming rich and stepping over the others.

Actually when I was 30 years old I was working 60 hours a week making abut 30K per year and was nearly 200 thousand it debt. And I was just like you, while I was in the business of selling to wealthy people, I hated them and thought that they were trying to make sure that I did not have my chance.

The person that was denying me my chance was me. You see I really was not working 60 hours a week I was working 15 to 20 I was spending 40 in a pity party. I was fortunate and had a wealthy business person that for some reason saw a spark of talent in me and told me that he would help me in every way, except financially, until I could invest at the same level as he did. When I heard this I thought it was BS, but I had may back against the wall and had nothing to loose.

So I started to do what he asked to the best of my ability, and low and behold the same job in the same company with the same hours and I was at 60K, the 80K then he had me take a vacations and spend a week with him. Again, no money but I was able to see what he did and how he handled his money.

I can home and sold my nice car that I could not afford and bought a Ford Escort with 110 thousand miles, then sold my furniture and then my house, and bought a little home that was in terrible shape. worked my fingers to the bone and in 2 years sold it for nearly 70K more than I paid for it.

I was not debt free and on my was, I finished my security certification, and was able to invest as an equal with the person that started my conversion.

After a few years to build capital we got a wonderful contract to provide security to VIP's that wanted to make the lives of out troops a little better.

We became a company that the big players could no longer over look so they like good capitalist, bought us and hired me to consult, with that money I started a development firm and bought into a distribution company. 18 years ago I was making 30K per year. now I make more than triple that per month, and I don't work 60 hours a week anymore I work 70 or 80, but not one minute of it feels like work and if I want to take a few minutes to post on here, I am the owner, and I can do it.

This could happen time and time again, but we have people in this nations that have a vested interest in keeping people dependent on the system. they gain power from people that can't make it on their own.

And they keep them thinking that the rich person is keeping them down and doing so on purpose. Truth is, I employ a lot of people contract many others. And offer jobs that would give any of my employee's the same resources that I had. but most of them are in debt up to their eyeballs and think they work to hard for too little?

I do what I do and turn the profit that I desire. I don't do anything but offer them jobs which they are free to take and free to leave if they get a better offer.

And other than charity, I am to busy with my own life to even consider trying to keep others down.

zelmo1234
10-13-2013, 06:17 PM
I pretty understand capitalism. And also I understand humans enough to know that capitalism will be always an injust system that will create extreme poverty.

You do know that what we call extreme poverty in this nation? the people have cell phone and cars and could have safe housing if they choose, get medical care, get educated?

There is extreme poverty in the world, but not in this country, unless it is by choice

Also please explain why capitalism produces a higher standard of living?

Mainecoons
10-13-2013, 06:20 PM
Capitalism has provided a higher standard of living for everyone, including the poor. What is considered poor in the U.S. is lower middle class in Mexico.

How many of you know that half of the U.S. poor own their own homes? That most have cars, TVs, appliances?

Come on down and I'll show you poor.

Chris
10-13-2013, 06:23 PM
Yes, capitalism won the battle. But what I see is more poverty, less opportunities to get a job in good conditions. And every day will be harder. I see how the salaries are going down. I see how the rich people is getting richer.

I see how the mini-jobs of Germany do worse the live of many German people. I see how the unemployment is rising everywhere. In USA and Spain we have about 20-25% of unemployment. I see how the rights of the workers are being reduced in name of the free market, and how the conditions of the jobs got are worse.

I make you a bet. Do an abusive offer for a job, and you will see how many people will come to get it. It is capitalism.


There was never any battle. SOcialism, in it's various national implementations, failed on its own. --Unless you're referring to the economic calculation (Mises) and coordination (Hayek) debates the socialists conceded in the 90s before they adopted social democracy (management instead of control of capitalism).

If things are getting worse is corporatism, the collusion of government and business, not free market capitalism. It's driven us into the Great Recession, and the slowest recovery we've ever seen.

Chris
10-13-2013, 06:27 PM
The only extreme poverty I am aware of is where there was no private property rights, and rule of law (capitalism). Unless you can name a time period before the late 1700's where anyone, anywhere has ever protested poverty.

The difference is dramatic, pre/post property rights, rule of law:

http://i.snag.gy/feLPn.jpg

See Gregory Clark, [i]A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World[/url] for tons of data.

Mainecoons
10-13-2013, 06:27 PM
There's a huge "Future Shock" transition going on right now. I recommend this as a very interesting read on the topic:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23990211