Capitalism versus Socialism

[LexusInfernus 908]

This is a funny topic, even though it demonstrates the sad reality of how we all are influenced by the form of information presented to us as opposed to engaging on the function of it.

 

Capitalism and socialism are not systems of organisation. They are ideologies. We tend to forget that all too often. We as human beings have at varying times and circumstances turned ideologies in to something which is unnervingly close to religion. Without regard for the realities (ranging from human psychology to cultural internalisation processes to dependancies of systems as well as organisational processes) of the systems of organisation effectuated through the imposing of ideology on those systems. 

 

In simple terms, both capitalism and socialism have become religions which have seperated themselves from the realities of the dependancies we face over time in our human dynamics and organisation. Particularly in our country, the US, we should recognise how we have internalised this in to our cultural orientation as a society. Let's be honest, we as Americans are unable to have an open uninfluenced debate on the differences between any ideologies, the benefits versus disadvantages or even the purpose of ideologies. And quite simply only because ideology has become nothing more than marketing in service of selective interests. It is the age old theme of asking the question "who benefits". Society as a whole does not benefit from positioning its orientation and forms of organisation on one far extreme end of a scale. The general interest always suffers in the light of extreme positions and the absence of buffers against the excesses of human behaviour. 

 

I realise that is a rather harsh thing to say as an American. But again let's be honest, we are influenced by that marketing. It is more than a simple case of the victor writes your history, it is a complex set of circumstances where we as a society are constantly influenced by that marketing without much of any means to look (or even think) outside of the box of artificial dependancies imposed on society in service of the continuity of a status quo which was required as a modus operandi for persisting in one of the biggest struggles our modern times have ever seen. That of the conflict of ideologies of capitalism and socialism in service of the concentration of wealth and power. 

 

It really is that simple, it is nothing new in our human history. We've seen it across the ages on tribal levels as well as between the struggles of empires. We as a social species always find a way to utilise ideology as a mechanism to guide or control our systems of organisation. And always in service of wealth and power. 

 

The following may be a statement even harder to digest. The American Dream is mere propaganda. It is marketing. Ofcourse, it did not start out that way, it was at one point a dream which presented a goodbye to an old world of empires and the verdict of man being nothing but a resource in service of those better suited to decide on utilisation of resources. It was a beacon even of a trend in globalisation to seperate from existing systems of organisation and create something better suited to the changing circumstances and the shifts of and between dependancies of those systems of organisation. 

 

That American Dream however became part of instrumentation in service of wealth and power - marketing - once our country decided to not seperate itself from the old world any longer but to replace it. Our first use of societal morale as a catalyst towards expansion and imperialism marked the time where we made that decision. Ofcourse, society did not consciously decide, but it also did not elect to put a stop to the course change. When we blew up the Maine in a first concerted step toward imperialism (admittedly at the time still primarily economically orientated) we as a country changed course. We set on a course that took us back to that which we in our formation and creation had intended to seperate from, to be better than, the old imperial worlds of the colonial empires. Incidentally, it does not take a historian to see how we as a country have across time created and allowed similar catalysts to arise and be put in service of strenghtening our focus on imperialism. 

 

That last statement may be a bit cold, but most Americans have very little idea of how much of the history we are taught is far from neutral. Whether it is the lessons we receive at school, the lectures we receive at university, the textbooks required to discuss at military academy, or even just our polarised media who have become nothing more than channels of marketing for our internal societal dynamic, all the information we receive as citizens is incredibly different from the information available to the rest of the world. To give but one example, how many of us remember that day of infamy and the pain of Pearl Harbour? I dare to say that it is an essential part of our culture, that day, one which has shaped us ever since. Now, how many of us Americans have ever been given the opportunity at school to make a comparative analysis of that day with the use of the congressional logs and the diaries of the staff involved in the decisions that day? I should mention though, that if we were to engage on this, we would find ourselves in a very tough position of having to admit that we made a set of conscious decisions surrounding that day. First of all that we consciously created the circumstances for it to happen, second that we were aware of the culmination of events in to the plans for that day all the way and third that we decided to let it happen in order to serve as a catalyst for a reboot designed to commit our society to a path which its founding had elected to not participate in. 

 

Ofcourse one can always argue about the pitfalls of human behaviour, the necessity of guarding against evil and so forth. But it is remarkable that elements of morality were not present in our decision processes in those days. What was present was economic orientation. Morality only became a topic in the marketing after engaging on that path. Interesting in its own right. Nonetheless, try and find a college where people will even tolerate such research, you will be hard pressed to a) find one and b) socially survive the presentation of findings. 

 

As a society we are no longer able, in any way or form, to make our own human decisions in balance between general and selective interests. So let's get back to the heart of the topic again. Capitalism is just another ideology. So was and is socialism. Just like in another time in history the divine right of kings. Ok, today we have the economic right of kings but that is a topic in its own right. But you see the point here: we confuse our systems of organisation with our ideology. We cannot distinguish between that which is a dependancy of or for a form or type of organisation and the ideological concept of any variable or condition. 

 

The most practical case in point is that of how we Americans think about economics. How often do we believe (no pun intended) that a market is a dynamic in its own right which is posed to balance itself always? This belief is a structural part of how we take on the challenges in life as a society. Unfortunately there is no such thing as the market always fixing itself because it is a dynamic in its own right. Think about it, economic interaction - no matter how remote from the individual behaviour on which it rests - is interaction between humans, the fundamental basis being an exchange of trust. We are taught that the fundamental basis is an exchange of resources. See the difference?

 

There is no magical autocorrecting market. That is ideology. Our economic systems are based on that conviction, that idea of a magical autocorrecting market. Yes, there are patterns in human behaviour, and yes there are stimuli and variables. But it is still human behaviour. The only way to maintain stability of an economic system based solely on ideology (as opposed to a more common sense orientation towards dependancies and variables in changing circumstances) is to enlarge the reach of the economic system in order to impose a form of organisation required for further growth of that system. 

 

Trouble is, and that is another hard thing to consider for an American brought up in America, there is such a thing as limits to growth. Look at how ideology has distorted the very concepts of the basis of capitalistic concepts. Capitalism once very much recognised the limitations on growth as a central theme within the theoretical construct. However, as capitalism became ideology that was abandoned because it left room for the presence of other ideologies and connected systems of organisation. Recognising how the prevailing of capitalism as ideology in service of selective interests required the continuous growth of the reach of that ideology the notion of "natural limits to growth" was abandoned, and across several decades even given the taste of being a "commie idea". Even today this marks one of the biggest differences between US economic thinkers and those in the rest of the world. Incidentally, it is also quite interesting to figure out how this has become connected to our cultural concepts of "big is better" but also of how this cultural internalisation - of what essentially is not reality but just marketing - prevents us from even striving towards constructively thinking about any necessities of balance between our economics and our environment. 

 

So, again, neither capitalism nor socialism are systems of organisation. We are taught to think of them that way, depending on where we are born and at what point in history we live really. They are ideologies, and we as Americans are for our long term prospects - to be blunt - even more royally screwed than the Russians who fell victim to socialism being used as ideology for the organisation of a society in service of selective interests (and not the general interests). We Americans are the slaves, we are the storm troopers, we are now what we once set ought to not be. History shows us how that ends for the people who constitute a society caught in such an inverted trend. I'll give you a hint, it is never healthy, no matter how long it stretches on, whether its the heads of children or their children's children, the heads ultimately always roll. En masse. 

 

We really need to stop depending on the information available within our society. We really need to start looking further than the wall. We really need to start looking at that which we all face. A little revolution every now and then is not a bad idea. Quite ironic really, for a country which tosses our limited history around so much as a validation for our marketing we really seem to prefer to leave out the more basic, and harder parts of it. In our debates today on our economics, we really should take a hard look at how we decide that our basis of economics is the exchange of resources, and not the actual human reality beneath it which shows us that economics is based on an exchange of trust.

 

Again, we tell ourselves that we base it on exchange of trust, but we act on it as an exchange of resources - no wonder we treat ourselves as mere resources. Marketing, propagande even, when you look beneath the veneer of history imposed.

 

It's pure irony. The US from its founding to where we now are could have been as wealth, as powerful, as meaningful as we think it is today (which we're not, really) if we had not allowed ourselves to become a colonial empire as what we wanted to seperate ourselves from. There's been an enormous amount of study on it (obviously outside of the US), but a US leading by example on a basis of principality and adaptability would not only have prevented a great many human conflicts, it would have brought us further than where we are now, at a lower cost and with a much higher stability - not to mention real wealth, real power. Instead we decided to take the Imperialism 2.0 train, and look where we are now. Except, most of us can't look at where we are now, because the information we get is consistantly tainted by the veneer of required marketing. 

 

Irony.

Dude, just no. Yes, we have turned capitalism into an ideology, but at its core it IS a system of organization. Namely a system that says that if you let people do what they do best, with minimal government interference, it will usually work itself out. And in a lot of cases, this is true. If you are good at something, and other people require that something, you can do it for them, and they give you money in return. That is capitalism in its most basic and most purest form. Where as in communism the government tells you that you cannot provide that service for money, unless the government sanctions you and only then you must do it so many times a year and the government will pay you for it, not the guy that wants the service. That is communism. Socialism is a bit of a middle ground where only in some sectors certain rules apply and you have to pay more taxes because the government uses those taxes to provide certain public services, such as education or the construction of infrastructure. Clearly these are systems of organizations. 

 

It only turned into an ideology after the US claimed that communism was godless and opposed freedom, while the communists vilified capitalism by saying that it was exploitative in nature and treated the majority of people as slaves. Socialism came to be associated with communism and thus got dragged through the dirt with communism in capitalist societies. 

 

There most certainly is a self regulating force on the market, however just not on every market. But in the more industrial markets, there most certainly is a self regulating force. However, one must not forget that such a force is purely creating an equilibrium between supply and demand and the price, nothing else. One must also not forget that while competition in certain markets drives down prices, you do not have working competition on other markets and therefor competition does not always drive prices down. At the same time, with socialism, costs may get out of hand if the government keeps expanding the services it tries to provide. 

 

Now what should we do. I do agree that capitalism and to a lesser extend socialism/communism are treated as religions, one good the other bad. We should stop that at once. Capitalism should not be above any form of criticism because it is capitalism, and socialism should be respected as having some very good ideas that we can and should consider using. Second, we do need a little revolution in order to enforce a culture change, because our capitalist culture is thoroughly corrupted with greed and short term self interest, and the people with money do seem to think the rules should not apply to them. Tax evasion, exploitation, etc, this should be punished and made impossible once more. That requires a clear message from the people. Either through product boycotts from companies that screw us over as well as good old protests. 

[macvirt 361]

Think. Systems of organisation are created, by human beings, for dealing with challenges based on circumstances, based on ideas those human beings have - and the struggle between different ideas (the difference between concepts of theory versus the reality of practice and the compromises required) for the implementation of and influence over systems of organisation. Capitalism is a theoretical construct, and over time it has become an ideology, and today it is rapidly degrading in to nothing more than a marketing instrument for concentration of wealth (as opposed to creation of wealth). We tell ourselves that the cake always grows, but inflating it with hot air just is not the same as growing it. More to the point, if we want more cake we have to bake more cake. 

 

So again, ideology does not equal systems of organisation. There is no causal relation, even though there is a clear relation of influence, which however is not unilaterally determined by ideology - because ideology deals with wishes & wants, versus the realities we have to deal with on a daily basis. We strive to impose our convictions, we do not strive to learn lessons or adapt to changing circumstances. We seek status quo out of the same ideological convictions, and try to influence systems of organisation as well as limit systems of organisation because of it. 

 

Our thinking today is shaped by the necessity of participation in systems of organisation in service of ideology regardless of whether those systems still have an effective match in practice or whether those are mere desires imposed on participants and dependancies alike because we expect them to correspond to our own ideas and convictions. Which indeed is why ideology has grown to something to close to religion, because belief is taught to be required for continuity and growth. 

 

A little revolution yes, but as much as I see the structural necessity for it I can not see any potential foundation for it to happen in the US. It is not a country anymore which shares a singular culture required for the kind of mass internalisation of necessity of adapting to changing circumstances. Our country has become a conflict zone between internal interests and their dependancies. And that in a time where we should, and could, lead by competing as a united society. Not through an abused marketing sense imposing a necessity to point all noses the same way because not doing that is evil or does not correspond to interests, or anything like that, but through acceptance that diversity is key, that all people share basic needs and room for opportunities and that the whole should be bigger than the sum of its parts exactly because the parts are diverse and are enabled for opportunity and basic needs. 

[macvirt 361]

 

My perspective is that Socialism creates equality, whereas Capitalism creates opportunity. I personally find that both concepts in there purest of forms create boring societies. I ideally think that a mix of both concepts addresses the shortcomings in each of the concepts that perhaps you could consider it as equality of opportunity. But even that approach has it problems since the people cannot or will not agree on where certain things belong. Obviously your life or the lives of people you know effect each of us on which is the best concept. Thinking aloud here I would guess that people who constantly struggle throughout their life would prefer Socialist society because they feel a Capitalistic society has kept them down whereas those who have had some level of opportunity in life would prefer Capitalism and fear that Socialism would greatly lower their quality of life. Which is "better" is solely a matter of perspective.

 

But there is no such thing as a capitalist or socialist society. We confuse ideology with systems of organisation. This is how we are brought up, regardless of in which ideology we are taught to believe. And that is the crucial element, taught to believe. Our perspectives of which ideology creates what is just that: what we are taught to believe. The information we are given is always in service of which ideology is dominant in and over our lives. So ofcourse we as Americans believe that capitalism creates opportunity. Which is true as long as you believe it. Unfortunately opportunity comes from something much, much more basic: human beings exchanging their perspectives, human beings exchanging trust. That is what creates opportunities. It does pain me to have to recognise this as an American, because until I moved abroad I found such "notions" tantamount to everything I had ever learned. Trouble is, I can't deny it any more. Not in the light of information that quite simply would never have been put on our table back home. Opportunity is created everywhere people come together. Ideology has nothing to do with it. There is not even a statistical relation between any ideology and number of opportunities or even economic growth or cultural progression.

 

We forget that we Americans elected to engage in a conflict between ideologies as an extension of a conflict of politics, and later on economics. Socialism did not fail in Russia because it did not create systems of organisation that were created. We forget that there was no opportunity for socialism as ideology to even be tested in its own right there. Quite simply because of the Cold War. Socialism in Russia went bust because our ability to gain flexible control over resources globally outperformed that of Russia's own attempts because they were in shambles from winning a very costly war while we had used that war to build the foundation for economic dominance. In a nutshell, we forced them to compete militarily and the cost of engaging in that conflict forced them going broke. Socialism, communism, whichever form of ideology was put on a table, did not work because it was not an ideological conflict but an economical conflict forced in a format of military expenditures which Russia was unable to compete in structurally because of our headstart following WWII. 

 

Now on the level of theory, you are right, in terms of the orientation of the theories beneath what turned in to ideology. A focus on human interaction from the perspective of social exchange as the basis beneath all other exchanges is something which in theory is more prone to generate an equality which is not present in forms of human interaction which prioritise the theoretical concept of opportunity management - because the latter is a case of resource management, and when we classify the human element as part of our resources we by default create a form of organisation where the inequality of resources is paramount to the functionality of that organisation. Which - again still on the level of the theoretical debate - in a moral sense can very honestly be described as less socially oriented. 

 

But again, what once was theory became ideology. And in truth, through all the persistance of the required propaganda it became something very close to religion. The forms of human organisation we as human beings come up with have the requirement of participation in it, it is our ultimate catch22 of human existance. For a chosen form of organisation to persist people must participate in it and thus must believe in it. But that can all too easily become a problem, because this requires a status quo which is not a given in the world we live in. It is ofcourse understandable that we try to maintain our status quo, but we should recognise that a) we can go too far in our methods in service of that and b) that there are always times where we have to adapt to changing circumstances and changing dependancies. If we then solely cling to our ideologically created narrative we deny ourselves the mere chance of seizing the opportunities of a changing world. It denies us from learning our lessons, from preserving and strengthening that which balances the interests of the whole with those of its parts, it denies us survival and growth on our own terms. 

 

We make the choice to not seize opportunities because we persist in our thinking only because we believe that our ideology is reality. This is so contrary even to our own ideology that it is almost mindnumbingly baffling. Yet we still make that same choice to believe and continue "as is". Why? Who benefits, the eternal question. Not society, that much should be clear to even the most stubborn ideologically guided person today. 

So what is the solution then? Going all the way to one extreme end of a scale? How is any position on a far end of a scale ever a good recipee for balance? It is madness. 

 

> 

My perspective is that Socialism creates equality, whereas Capitalism creates opportunity. I personally find that both concepts in there purest of forms create boring societies. I ideally think that a mix of both concepts addresses the shortcomings in each of the concepts that perhaps you could consider it as equality of opportunity. But even that approach has it problems since the people cannot or will not agree on where certain things belong. Obviously your life or the lives of people you know effect each of us on which is the best concept. Thinking aloud here I would guess that people who constantly struggle throughout their life would prefer Socialist society because they feel a Capitalistic society has kept them down whereas those who have had some level of opportunity in life would prefer Capitalism and fear that Socialism would greatly lower their quality of life. Which is "better" is solely a matter of perspective.

 

But there is no such thing as a capitalist or socialist society. We confuse ideology with systems of organisation. This is how we are brought up, regardless of in which ideology we are taught to believe. And that is the crucial element, taught to believe. Our perspectives of which ideology creates what is just that: what we are taught to believe. The information we are given is always in service of which ideology is dominant in and over our lives. So ofcourse we as Americans believe that capitalism creates opportunity. Which is true as long as you believe it. Unfortunately opportunity comes from something much, much more basic: human beings exchanging their perspectives, human beings exchanging trust. That is what creates opportunities. It does pain me to have to recognise this as an American, because until I moved abroad I found such "notions" tantamount to everything I had ever learned. Trouble is, I can't deny it any more. Not in the light of information that quite simply would never have been put on our table back home. Opportunity is created everywhere people come together. Ideology has nothing to do with it. There is not even a statistical relation between any ideology and number of opportunities or even economic growth or cultural progression.

 

We forget that we Americans elected to engage in a conflict between ideologies as an extension of a conflict of politics, and later on economics. Socialism did not fail in Russia because it did not create systems of organisation that were created. We forget that there was no opportunity for socialism as ideology to even be tested in its own right there. Quite simply because of the Cold War. Socialism in Russia went bust because our ability to gain flexible control over resources globally outperformed that of Russia's own attempts because they were in shambles from winning a very costly war while we had used that war to build the foundation for economic dominance. In a nutshell, we forced them to compete militarily and the cost of engaging in that conflict forced them going broke. Socialism, communism, whichever form of ideology was put on a table, did not work because it was not an ideological conflict but an economical conflict forced in a format of military expenditures which Russia was unable to compete in structurally because of our headstart following WWII. 

 

Now on the level of theory, you are right, in terms of the orientation of the theories beneath what turned in to ideology. A focus on human interaction from the perspective of social exchange as the basis beneath all other exchanges is something which in theory is more prone to generate an equality which is not present in forms of human interaction which prioritise the theoretical concept of opportunity management - because the latter is a case of resource management, and when we classify the human element as part of our resources we by default create a form of organisation where the inequality of resources is paramount to the functionality of that organisation. Which - again still on the level of the theoretical debate - in a moral sense can very honestly be described as less socially oriented. 

 

But again, what once was theory became ideology. And in truth, through all the persistance of the required propaganda it became something very close to religion. The forms of human organisation we as human beings come up with have the requirement of participation in it, it is our ultimate catch22 of human existance. For a chosen form of organisation to persist people must participate in it and thus must believe in it. But that can all too easily become a problem, because this requires a status quo which is not a given in the world we live in. It is ofcourse understandable that we try to maintain our status quo, but we should recognise that a) we can go too far in our methods in service of that and b) that there are always times where we have to adapt to changing circumstances and changing dependancies. If we then solely cling to our ideologically created narrative we deny ourselves the mere chance of seizing the opportunities of a changing world. It denies us from learning our lessons, from preserving and strengthening that which balances the interests of the whole with those of its parts, it denies us survival and growth on our own terms. 

 

We make the choice to not seize opportunities because we persist in our thinking only because we believe that our ideology is reality. This is so contrary even to our own ideology that it is almost mindnumbingly baffling. Yet we still make that same choice to believe and continue "as is". Why? Who benefits, the eternal question. Not society, that much should be clear to even the most stubborn ideologically guided person today. 

So what is the solution then? Going all the way to one extreme end of a scale? How is any position on a far end of a scale ever a good recipee for balance? It is madness. 

While I have not lived abroad, I have been fortunate enough to have traveled to a great many countries, experienced numerous cultures, custom and ideologies. And as I understand things (I am certainly not an expert) and my opinion I would have to disagree with you on ideologies vs. systems of organizations. Political ideologies typically consist of two things. The first being the goal, which is how the society should be organized and second being the method on how to achieve this goal. Based on that, I believe that one's belief in a particular system of organization is based upon one's ideology and are not mutually exclusive from one another.

 

I must also partially disagree with you on your statement that opportunity is created when we all come together. I find that to be a perspective and on a case by case basis. Without confusing success or failure with opportunity, we can site numerous examples where the individual thinks of and seizes an opportunity.

 

And while I disagree I won't say that you are wrong and I am right it is just my opinion based on the limited knowledge I have on the subject.

I would agree with everything else you have stated and you are apparently far more knowledge than myself on the subject. It does get rather mindnumbing when ones gets too deep into this and I almost feel as though I need a cocktail after getting as far as I have in the discussion. 

 

 

With "where people come together" I do not refer to a social get together or something like that, or a sort of value statement on how people need to find each other (touchy feely hippy thinking). What I refer to is the basic tendency of people to be in contact with other people, both purposely and not, as a simple extension of being social animals. We're not a unique species in this, gorilla's engage in trade as we do for the same primal reasons, they also observe circumstances and exchanges in order to seize opportunities (chimps even more so, incidentally), but we as a species do take it to very different levels of complexity, obviously, and we also impose that on our environment (resources, people, time, conditions, etc) while they do not go beyond the interaction of the social circle. That is, indeed, that which among us humans makes it a person by person case always. We do engage as group dynamics, but largely without individual cognitive appreciation of that, we tend to engage much more from and for our individual dynamics. As the saying goes, a human is an individual, a group of humans is a chaotic group of individuals. 

 

Heh, a cocktail every now and then is never a bad idea. The irony is that the cocktail concept is quite an interesting analogy for an approach to the challenge itself. We try to persist in one drink or the other, whereas mixing things up is much healthier (pun intended). 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well, our mixed model seems to be working in spite of all the angst over this government program and that. 

 

Right now, we are looking hard at the parking fees charged at hospitals.  I knew the fat was in the fire when the new parking garage at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto ate my Visa card the last time I was there.  It gave it back, but now had it registered.  You paid by passing the card in again at the exit.  With this system, they've got you six ways from the origin.  CBC investigative reporting branch is looking into this.  The report will be aired soon.

 

The hospitals are claiming they don't have enough money to run, hence exorbitant parking charges.  People have been skipping appointments because they can't afford to park.

 

It is time for a general forensic audit of the whole healthcare industry.  Too bad we can't turn the provincial auditor general loose on them.

[Alex_1210 189]

I wouldn't really go one way or another in real life, but I pick socialism. Socialism, if run correctly, is less chaotic, and (almost) nobody will die from not being able to make enough money.

And we wouldn't have to waste so much time on politics. Some might like this, but this would leave more time for the average person to enjoy their lives.

 

Originally posted by: MrFingers

Originally posted by: Cjah Welfare DOES NOT make you lazy.....

 

It's hard to deny that recieving free long term financial assistance makes you complacent and take it for granted.  I mean... the evidence is literally EVERYWHERE!!  It's just human nature.

Right, everywhere. I too have never met anyone that lives on welfare. There's only a few people that do that, it's not like a big chunk of the population does it.

 

 

You could argue that socialism was never properly implemented, and i agree, but the problem isn't implementation, because implementation is not the problem, the idea in itself is evil, a society which awards the 'needy' over the producers is a society destined to fail.

And also, yes, the average person will have more time......spent waiting in food lines!

[LexusInfernus 908]

You could argue that socialism was never properly implemented, and i agree, but the problem isn't implementation, because implementation is not the problem, the idea in itself is evil, a society which awards the 'needy' over the producers is a society destined to fail.

And also, yes, the average person will have more time......spent waiting in food lines!

 

A society that ignores the needy is equally destined to fail. Every system that is heavily one sided either way is unlikely to work out. 

 

Though one could argue that with the help of robots and computers, a country would be more capable of calculating the required output in production in order to satisfy everyone. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

^ I recommend you have a read of R.U.R. by Karl Capec before you fall too much in love with robots.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Yes yes, robots will kill us all and replace us. Its such a common story really. But thats just it, its a story. For now there are no robots with human intelligence or anything resembling it. And once they get here, it remains to be seen whether or not they want to kill us all. 

[AkemiAzula 280]

I think the Simcity system works best. Healthcare, education, transportation and utilities should be nationalised/publically run. Businesses like electronics companies or bakers and hairdressers are privately run. 

 

I voted for a bit of both. I think standardisation can work if implemented properly the first time round. Localisation works best for 'local' issues such as developments and environmental protection, whereas railways and hospitals should be run by the government.

 

Of course in my Simcities the 'government' doesn't do anything bad and is 100 percent incorruptible... 

 

I think benefits are necessary because of the (ironically) socialist way society is these days. We live in cities and urban areas, many of us don't even have a garden or much to speak of. It is hard to speak of the capitalist dream of fending for oneself and making ones own way through life when there is such overpopulation and every resource is strained to meet demand. If we can not find lebensraum for our advancement, to colonise and make our own, then we are restricted in where and how we can act.

 

It is all fine and dandy to tell a young man to go west, but these days he'll likely come across a catchment zone with '1000 dollar fine no trespassing' signs along its high fence...

[Duke87 1,070]

A society that ignores the needy is equally destined to fail. Every system that is heavily one sided either way is unlikely to work out.

 

As I see it there are two kinds of needy - the important kind is people who are working or capable of working but unable to make ends meet due to lack of income are contributors to society and it thus is of a general benefit to society to look after them. The other kind is the homeless people who for one reason or another never will be capable of actually contributing anything other than begging for change. From a purely economic standpoint, these people contribute nothing and are only a burden. The most functionally beneficial thing to do would be to simply get rid of them... of course, mass execution is highly immoral, so we'll be having none of that. Seriously, though, a society that lacks morality is just as big of a problem as a society that lacks economic fortitude. We therefore have to take care of the homeless purely on a moral basis, even if it is financially detrimental. 

 

Still, the thing you have to be careful with with welfare is that it should not be designed (intentionally or unintentionally) to breed dependence on it. A good welfare system assists anyone who is capable of doing so to get off of welfare and stand on their own two feet at a later date. Welfare in the US really does not do this, and that in many ways holds us back. The problem is that our government sees welfare not as a means of helping people but as a political tool for helping themselves - i.e., give people benefits an they will vote for you. Telling the people you're giving the benefits to that they should work to get off of them is not what they want to hear and does not win you votes the same way..

[LexusInfernus 908]

 As I see it there are two kinds of needy - the important kind is people who are working or capable of working but unable to make ends meet due to lack of income are contributors to society and it thus is of a general benefit to society to look after them. The other kind is the homeless people who for one reason or another never will be capable of actually contributing anything other than begging for change. From a purely economic standpoint, these people contribute nothing and are only a burden. The most functionally beneficial thing to do would be to simply get rid of them... of course, mass execution is highly immoral, so we'll be having none of that. Seriously, though, a society that lacks morality is just as big of a problem as a society that lacks economic fortitude. We therefore have to take care of the homeless purely on a moral basis, even if it is financially detrimental. 

 

 

 

I don't think it is right that you judge the value of a human being based solely on how much they contribute to the economy. Yet that is exactly what is happening in so many western countries, where everyone who requires welfare is set aside as lazy and probably drug addicts. It even goes as far that we are in some ways reintroducing government mandated forced labor, just so those people can't be lazy and what not. The way politicians treat poor people is utterly repulsive. 

 

 

Still, the thing you have to be careful with with welfare is that it should not be designed (intentionally or unintentionally) to breed dependence on it. A good welfare system assists anyone who is capable of doing so to get off of welfare and stand on their own two feet at a later date. Welfare in the US really does not do this, and that in many ways holds us back. The problem is that our government sees welfare not as a means of helping people but as a political tool for helping themselves - i.e., give people benefits an they will vote for you. Telling the people you're giving the benefits to that they should work to get off of them is not what they want to hear and does not win you votes the same way..

 

 

Oh come on, that is nonsense. No politician, certainly not in the US is saying 'we give you welfare so you don't have to work, vote for us'. They are all about helping 'job creators' and if they talk about poor people, they are either painted of as lazy and entitled who use the welfare money for drugs (Republicans) or they are considered to be weak and sick people who are fundamentally incapable of surviving without the help of the benign enlightened liberal (Democrats). Which is why the 'poor people vote' is split pretty evenly between the left and right. It are relatively poor states that massively vote for the guys who treat poor people like criminals, while it are the relatively rich states that vote the guys that treat poor people as a way to feel good about themselves. 

 

Also, consider this. Why would you accept a terrible job with long hours and insufficient pay, when you can earn more netto by applying to government assistance. And government assistance really isn't that much, its maybe enough to get you some food, some clothes and perhaps a cheap rental apartment. Now often the case is that once you start working and earning a certain amount of money, you gotta pay taxes, and suddenly because of those taxes, you earn less money netto than if you would not work and get government assistance. The problem in the US (and some other welfare states) is not that the government assistance is to much, its simply that doing a lot of real jobs simply do not earn enough. And that is assuming there are any jobs open in the area to begin with, which is far from certain in a lot of cases. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well, if you like the idea of a capitalist state with some socialism tossed in, migrate to Canada.  We've been making this work since WW II or even earlier.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I've considered it. If I could get a job in Canada, I'm fairly certain I would take it. 

 

But for now Europe is fine as well. Still plenty of socialism mixed with our capitalism. 

[Mr Saturn64 742]

But look at every communist nation in history

for some examples (there are more)

USSR: Suffered polices collapse

China: horrible place to live

North Korea: what hasn't been said about them?

[LexusInfernus 908]

North Vietnam: trampled by South Vietnam and US.

Ehm...they won the war you know...

[Duke87 1,070]

I don't think it is right that you judge the value of a human being based solely on how much they contribute to the economy.

 

Not "to the economy" per se. There are plenty of people who do not particularly contribute economically but still contribute socially. Anyone who is retired, for instance, is no longer productive but still contributes by the virtue of being part of a family, being able to discuss history, etc.

 

But, if you're Joe homeless guy, you have no family or friends who care about you (if you did, you'd have a home to go to), so you don't contribute to society socially, either. So then what are you worth, really? You add no value to anyone's life, you only detract.

 

Oh come on, that is nonsense. No politician, certainly not in the US is saying 'we give you welfare so you don't have to work, vote for us'

 

Well of course they're not saying it, but let's think pragmatically here: if I am receiving welfare, am I going to vote for the guy who wants to take it away from me? Or am I going to vote for the guy who wants to preserve it/give me more? There is a reason that working class people in cities all vote Democrat. My grandfather, for example, swears he will never vote for anyone from a party that might take his pension away... and he is not particularly liberal about other issues.

 

It is a fair enough argument that plenty of poor people in other areas always vote Republican because "Obama's gonna take mah guns away", "Democrats kill babies", or some other such reason... but the fact remains that even if their votes for the Democratic party haven't been bought with welfare, the votes of many people have. Republicans, as the counter to that, buy votes from people who are middle class and up by offering to cut their taxes (conveniently by cutting welfare, since it's a liberal thing).

[LexusInfernus 908]

Not "to the economy" per se. There are plenty of people who do not particularly contribute economically but still contribute socially. Anyone who is retired, for instance, is no longer productive but still contributes by the virtue of being part of a family, being able to discuss history, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

But, if you're Joe homeless guy, you have no family or friends who care about you (if you did, you'd have a home to go to), so you don't contribute to society socially, either. So then what are you worth, really? You add no value to anyone's life, you only detract.

 

 

 

 

Western thinking is based on the idea that life itself adds value, even if one uses it to be a lonely alcoholic bum. 

 

That aside, a good social security system prevents most people from becoming homeless vagrants. They reach out to these people when they can still make a change in their life style before it destroys them. 

 

Also, old people still contribute to the economy by being consumers. 

 

Well of course they're not saying it, but let's think pragmatically here: if I am receiving welfare, am I going to vote for the guy who wants to take it away from me? Or am I going to vote for the guy who wants to preserve it/give me more? There is a reason that working class people in cities all vote Democrat. My grandfather, for example, swears he will never vote for anyone from a party that might take his pension away... and he is not particularly liberal about other issues.

 

It is a fair enough argument that plenty of poor people in other areas always vote Republican because "Obama's gonna take mah guns away", "Democrats kill babies", or some other such reason... but the fact remains that even if their votes for the Democratic party haven't been bought with welfare, the votes of many people have. Republicans, as the counter to that, buy votes from people who are middle class and up by offering to cut their taxes (conveniently by cutting welfare, since it's a liberal thing).

 

 

Think about it, it makes no sense. If only middle class Americans would vote for the Republicans, how come the Republicans are the strongest in the relatively poorer states of the US, while the democrats generally hold the richer states? How come that for example a state like Tennessee turned its medical aid program into a freaking lottery open for only 2500 people a year? Such a plan should have been political suicide if people vote for whoever promises the most welfare. 

 

Reality demonstrates that a lot of people clearly do not vote based on whoever promises them the most welfare. 

 

But to be fair, most republicans are not really against the idea of welfare for people who really deserve it. Their problem is more that their idea of who deserves it and who does not is out of whack, and where they severely overestimate the amount of 'freeloaders'. In reality, if you check on the vast majority of welfare recipients you come to the conclusion that those people generally deserve the help and they are certainly not the freeloader who leeches off on other peoples taxpayer money. 

[AkemiAzula 280]

"The most functionally beneficial thing to do would be to simply get rid of them... of course, mass execution is highly immoral, so we'll be having none of that"

 

Well the pogrom could always be carried out in secret by government agents. Economics is a form of morality. After all if it isn't economically sensible, it isn't sensible period, and anything economically stupid will affect society in a bad way.

 

Benefits are abused, but the real problem is cost of living. If an honest worker made so much more than benefits there'd be no incentive there to abuse. This man in a hoodie on the train yesterday was angry at the ticket inspector because the inspector refused his ticket and he had all these reasons for why he hadn't got the correct fare. He was the 'city slicker' type who are often trouble makers. The inspector at last put him off the train. The man was still complaining.

 

The problem? Apparently on his incorrect ticket he had overslept his station by three stops. Meaning he might face the unbearable agony of walking five miles to Worthing. t's this kind of laziness and weak attitude that creates dole bludgers, not benefits themselves. Without benefits most likely his type would be criminals fully blown.

 

Then again I believe public transport should be free and funded by a universal tax so...

[LexusInfernus 908]

Well the pogrom could always be carried out in secret by government agents. Economics is a form of morality. After all if it isn't economically sensible, it isn't sensible period, and anything economically stupid will affect society in a bad way.

That kind of morality can result in the most horrible forms of human right abuses,. Most importantly because it turns humans in nothing more than simple resources employed to serve the economy, rather than have the economy serve humanity. Not to mention the fact that such a society would strip itself of everything economically superfluous like philosophy, literature and art, except for things that are mass consumable. What a hellhole such a place would be. 

 

Also, there is no right form of economics. It depends on where you want society to go and whats important to you. This informs you of what kind of economic policies to pursue. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Notwithstanding all the official palaver, all this "human rights" talk is simply attempts to tame our predatory instincts.  Whether this is admirable or not depends on whether you belong to the top predator group or not.  I think it is the prey that dreams up the ideas of equality and rights. 

 

I am sure the sheep would like to have some defence against the wolves.  And what have we done about that?  We have put some wolves (sheep dogs) in charge of the fold.  All studies have shown that dogs are 99 44/100 % wolf.  Without man's veneer of civilization, what do you suppose would happen very quickly with hungry dogs?

 

If a parallel occurrence happened in our society, do you think things would be different?  Only the police (dogs) keep the looters at bay.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Bad economic conditions lead to austerity measures. Would you rather

 

Scenario A: Return of the Idealists; Economic conditions are worsening due to an ageing and unemployed overpopulation taking up valuable resources and contributing little in return. But because their precious human beings even a humane death would be an unforgiveable sin against God, so we must continue to tolerate this excess growth. (or weeds if you as I prefer, seeing as excess growth is just nature rebelling against Eddy Scissorhands creativity). Because of this everyone has to fend for themselves, public transport is shut down, hospitals become private affairs, and everybody has to be earning a great deal just to meet 19th century living standards for the lower classes. Sanitation fails quickly. Sewage builds up.

 

Etc.

 

Scenario B: Revenge of Common Sense; Same sitch as above except the government quietly and humanely sprays the weeds, tidies the paths and beds and chucks in a few bags of fertiliser created from the compost thus generated. Things start growing healthily again, and we temporarily forget ethics for the sake of common sense and the preservation of civilization and living standards. Then we pretend this never happened and carry on, this time trying to prevent the problems arising in the first place.

 

And they lived happily ever after.

 

Ok so maybe I was 'ruthless' in my suggestion. But face it, if humans were plants in a garden or on a farm, people on benefits who don't look for work and people who are too old or sick to work would be nowt but weeds or runt plants that didn't make it. Why give expensive life support mechanisms to plants that just take up valuable bedding space in fields?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Certainly a ruthless scenario.  I happen to be one of the superannuated indigents.  However, thanks to our socialist system, I now have sufficient government pensions to live a comfortable, if limited, life style without credit of any kind, being a cash only operation.  This weed makes his own nutrients and fertilizer. 

 

After 45 years of paying exorbitant taxes and ruthless premiums to the Canada Pension Plan, I now collect the money (a tiny amount) that resulted from governmental actuarial incompetence over my working life.  A few reverses of fortune took all my savings away in the 1990 time frame, but the social safety net still provides a little.  I have the necessities of life (shelter and food) and a few extras like connection to the Internet.  I even manage to save a little out of the grocery money so that my estate can pay for my cremation.

 

I am astounded that there are many who are in a much worse position than I.  Where do they come from?  Why did they not contribute to the social safety net during their "working" lives?  After WW II, there was lots of work, and there is no reason for these people not to have worked given good health.  The idea of indigent seniors gives me the pip.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Moose, you are not the sort of person I'd classify as a 'weed' element. In the case of the elderly I'd say that in most cases there isn't cause for cleaning. However if times got tough enough the natural logical action would be to preserve the fittest specimens as you would flowers or vegetables.

 

In the present scenario in which we actually dwell I would be more concerned with (in order of concern)

 

1. extremists/hardcore crims/madmen and 'counterproductives' (i.e aggressive weeds like the Lantana Camara I ripped out at Kiallalea State Park for several months...

2. unemployed people who don't seek to better their situation and minor criminals (think thistles and so forth)

3. layabouts and retired people, weak and sick people (I am not blaming anyone btw, just being realistic. We will all be retired one day, but the fact remains that a decommisioned loco put out to pasture in a museum aint hauling no trains no more

4. surplus population (Scissorhands annoyance) This is barely a consideration as many hands make light work, and there is actually enough resources to go round, it simply isn't distributed equally enough

 

However I myself was always an idealist... Also since they took Megan to Perth when I was eight I have not been to any extent religious either. However I am a realist and logical as well. If humans were plants we'd treat them very differently. As they aren't I can only say that in harsh times I do not approve of quantitative easing but austerity

 

Anyway I would sit on the fence on capitalism v socialism. I think absolute forms of either can't work in practice. There needs to be uniformity as well as freedom. However seeing as one of these days we'll all be composed of pixels and living in cyberspace none of this really matters anyway.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Scenario B: Revenge of Common Sense; Same sitch as above except the government quietly and humanely sprays the weeds, tidies the paths and beds and chucks in a few bags of fertiliser created from the compost thus generated. Things start growing healthily again, and we temporarily forget ethics for the sake of common sense and the preservation of civilization and living standards. Then we pretend this never happened and carry on, this time trying to prevent the problems arising in the first place.

 

And they lived happily ever after.

 

Ok so maybe I was 'ruthless' in my suggestion. But face it, if humans were plants in a garden or on a farm, people on benefits who don't look for work and people who are too old or sick to work would be nowt but weeds or runt plants that didn't make it. Why give expensive life support mechanisms to plants that just take up valuable bedding space in fields?

Well for starters, scenario B is called Eugenics, a bunk science that has resulted in unspeakable atrocities during the past century. Not to mention that 'covertly killing people' is a gross ineffective use of resources and that it actually hampers your economy the moment things go right again, not to mention that half of the people you mention in your next post who are targeted for extermination also pay taxes and consume, thus positively contributing to the economy, even if they don't work. Not to mention that it is literally impossible to covertly kill that many people without anyone noticing that mom, dad, brother, sister, uncle, aunt or cousin suddenly disappeared one day. Which of course leads to civil unrest, because who knows who might be next. 

 

Also, you forget scenario C, investigate how you can make your economy stable once again. I can assure that for every economic downturn, there are several roads that one can take that do not involve murdering civilians. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Let us not forget good old fashioned faith.  Most people strongly believe in the idea of money.  Money is a fable made up by Renaissance bankers and adopted by governments.  Before this, all intergovernmental payments were made in specie -- that's gold, silver, other metals, and hunks of pretty rock that have a permanent intrinsic value.  Bonds and such other trash and waste paper did not exist. 

 

Put not your faith in government bonds, my sons.  There will come a time when they properly belong in the stack of paper in the outhouse.  Think about all that Confederate money and all those bonds with Confederate signatures on them.  Any that are still around are collector's items, and they are not really worth the paper they are printed on.

[Mr Saturn64 742]

North Vietnam: trampled by South Vietnam and US.

Ehm...they won the war you know...OK, I f***ed up, I'll edit.

And the Confederacy only really existed for around the 4 years the Civil War went on. If your country fails, then the bonds are trash and have no purpose other Han collectors items.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Paper money I believe is meant to represent real value stored elsewhere as representative money, whereas specie has its own value as well as representing a monetary value.

 

It is logical to create a representative currency as it is not affected by supply of the resource. 

 

And to Lexus Infernus, I was not aware my logical solution had a scientific name haha. Very interesting. However your plan C seems to be very close to 'pacify them because otherwise all Hell shall break loose'. Compromise. My solution was not meant as advice to Mr Cameron, Mr Obama and co. but was an ideal scenario where humans act like plants and don't fight back because they know what's best for them.

 

If only the humans could be dealt with like plants... 

[LexusInfernus 908]

If only the humans could be dealt with like plants... 

Generally the people that treat humans like plants are a group of people you generally do not want to be associated with. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

There is not enough specie in the world to cover the amount of paper money issued by the United States let alone the rest of the world.  When they went off the gold standard, the U.S. set up this act of faith.  You can no longer walk into a bank and demand specie for your paper money.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Well I daresay digitalisation of currency will eventually become final anyway soon