Capitalism versus Socialism

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: Psycho_Teddy Ok, MrFingers, I'm seriously not trying to be rude, but could you consolidate your posts a bit?  You're really flooding this thread quite a bit.  Please make use of the edit button. quote>

I'm replying to people individually, is that against the rules?

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: fukuda

exactly, i don't remember having ever heard that greed or selfishness were morally good, let's wonder why?

quote>

lol, so it's greedy and selfish to not want want my property to be taken from me by force and spent inefficiently on government programs that by and large produce negative effects.  nice!  that's leftism right there

No, at all, I was talking about imcompatible things, like your example

Anarchism is suicide, it will only work in an utopic world, it's the best way to destroy a country

btw, stop flooding please, use the edit button

quote>

capitalism is not even really a system, the word was invented by Marx as a derogatory term to describe the act of voluntary exchange between individuals.  anarchy is simply an entirely voluntary society.  how is that incongruent?

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Palpatine001 57]

lol, so it's greedy and selfish to not want want my property to be taken from me by force and spent inefficiently on government programs that by and large produce negative effects.  nice!  that's leftism right there quote>

Hmmm my reply to that is:

Who gives a flying monkeys about your worthless money and as for property be greatful for having some, I can think of 4.5 billion individuals who would like even just a chance to have a piece of property let alone of actually having a piece of property.


-My 2 cents-

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: MrFingers

Originally posted by: Psycho_Teddy Ok, MrFingers, I'm seriously not trying to be rude, but could you consolidate your posts a bit?  You're really flooding this thread quite a bit.  Please make use of the edit button. quote>

I'm replying to people individually, is that against the rules?quote>

It is against Forum Etiquette see Forum Etiquette

[belfastuniguy 18]

I see no problem in personal replies, it is his thread after all.

I read the article and of course it is a wonderful idealist dream to have a world that operated in such a way. I cannot see the human race living in such a society, the fact is, human beings are selfish and when given the chance to better themselves and succeed then they will. No matter how generous some of us are many would take the opportunity to better themselves and family.

The defence issue is highly idealist and I can never see that working in any way whatsoever. I do see the advantage, in effect it would end all war in some respects, that cannot be relied upon as some people will always crave war.

I can forsee in the future the removal of national government, but not government as an institution. I can see a 'world government in the distant future, but I cannot see earth without any government at all. Especially as we develop the means to go beyond our planet and solar system and maybe encounter new planets and races. We would need a united government for such a thing to be successful.

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

I read the article and of course it is a wonderful idealist dream to have a world that operated in such a way. I cannot see the human race living in such a society, the fact is, human beings are selfish and when given the chance to better themselves and succeed then they will. No matter how generous some of us are many would take the opportunity to better themselves and family.

quote>

I'd agree with you on that, however, I see an anarcho-capitalist society as the most fair and best way to implement those human characteristics for good.

The defence issue is highly idealist and I can never see that working in any way whatsoever. I do see the advantage, in effect it would end all war in some respects, that cannot be relied upon as some people will always crave war.

quote>

You don't think that people who crave war would have an easier time achieving their goals in a society with centralised power rather than decentralised?  I think that is easily the most important lesson of the 20th century...

I can forsee in the future the removal of national government, but not government as an institution. I can see a 'world government in the distant future, but I cannot see earth without any government at all. Especially as we develop the means to go beyond our planet and solar system and maybe encounter new planets and races. We would need a united government for such a thing to be successful.quote>

I'm not so sure.  I think the lack of centrally led direction is healthy because it means that there will be lots of smaller directions taken which means a more darwinistic selection process of the best route, rather than a leadership which may make huge blunders, or worse, intentionally subvert.

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: Palpatine001

Who gives a flying monkeys about your worthless moneyquote>

Well clearly they give enough monkeys to take it and use it to distort markets, make war, etc.

and as for property be greatful for having some, I can think of 4.5 billion individuals who would like even just a chance to have a piece of property let alone of actually having a piece of property.

quote>

So I don't deserve the property that I earn through my talents and hard work?  And who are you to decide that the fruits of my labour should be shared with everyone else?

[Micah 16]

Talk about the topic, definitely not each other. Just because someone has different opinions than you, doesn't mean you have the right to flame them.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: MrFingersSo I don't deserve the property that I earn through my talents and hard work?  And who are you to decide that the fruits of my labour should be shared with everyone else?quote>

Fruits of your labour are shared with everyone else anyway... do sweatshop workers take home the clothes they make? Nope. Do Farmers grow their own food? Sometimes, but i'd like to see what they'd do with all that surplus Corn... you sell your hard labour for a pittance anyway so others can profit, its basically taking advantage of your skills.

[hamsterTK 93]

lol, so it's greedy and selfish to not want want my property to be taken from me by force and spent inefficiently on government programs that by and large produce negative effects. nice! that's leftism right therequote>

don't you think your being a bit reactionary and irrational in your attitude?

anyways, ideally it should be a mix like every other successful place in the world

Anarcho-capitalism would suck and deprive large parts of the population to services and amenities they have right now under the moderate system in place that's in place in the US.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Anarcho-capitalismquote>

Laissez-faire economics failed for a reason.  Why do some want to bring it back?

Barbarossaquote>

And it isn't exactly supported by citizens -- basing your economics on theory and not on reality is quite bad.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Anarcho-capitalismquote>

Laissez-faire economics failed for a reason.  Why do some want to bring it back?

Barbarossaquote>

And it isn't exactly supported by citizens -- basing your economics on theory and not on reality is quite bad.quote>

The Poor will always outnumber the Rich... Tony Ben said that "If the NHS was dissolved, there'd be a Revolution within the week"... they know the risks they are taking if they stop thinking with their brain and start thinking with their wallets. Complete Laissez-faire would not work simply for that reason.

[doodlea21 31]

In theory socialism has far better values (as long as you don't go as far as Soviet Russia). Though I must admit that it is near-impossible in practice.

[BurroDiablo 222]

People often think it 'Doesn't work in Pratice'. The purest Marxism is not practical since it calls for the abolishment of the state, but a country besically needs the State to function in a controlled manner. You may feel that the Soviet Union was awful (Human rights wise and freedom wise, yes it was) , but the Soviet Union would still be around today if it wasn't for Gorbachev's economic reforms, forcing the higher ups to try and Coup his arse out of office.

Problem with the Soviet Union is that it never changed its market structure and freedom's for the best part of 70 years, and when they decided to change during the 80's, the majority of people hated the idea and weren't ready for it.

Both Laissez-faire and Marxism are economic extremes that cannot be achieved without oppressing one or the other... oppressing the Poor however is much more dangerous than oppressing the Rich.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: MrFingers

Originally posted by: Psycho_Teddy Ok, MrFingers, I'm seriously not trying to be rude, but could you consolidate your posts a bit?  You're really flooding this thread quite a bit.  Please make use of the edit button. quote>

I'm replying to people individually, is that against the rules?quote>

You can reply to multiple people in the same post. After you're done with the first, don't click "Reply to Topic" yet. Instead, click quote on the second post you want to reply to and cut/paste that into the post you're already composing and close the second window. Look:

Originally posted by: Micah Talk about the topic, definitely not each other. Just because someone has different opinions than you, doesn't mean you have the right to flame them.quote>

This is a dummy reply to demonstrate the point.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: El Burro ...oppressing the Poor however is much more dangerous than oppressing the Rich.quote>

 

Only if it's allowed to fester until the peasants pick up their pitchforks. The rich can get rid of you much more efficiently and quickly, and will do it over far less total money being taken. 

Macchievelli's The Prince can provide excellent insight into class management.

It is said that if you confiscated all personal income over $200,000 in this country, it would total only 4% of government spending annually. Perhaps I should research it, because I myself am curious. You squeeze the middle class because that is where the money is; those at the lower margin can be taxed into poverty and are middle class in gross untaxed income only. 

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: El Burro ...oppressing the Poor however is much more dangerous than oppressing the Rich.quote>

 

Only if it's allowed to fester until the peasants pick up their pitchforks. The rich can get rid of you much more efficiently and quickly, and will do it over far less total money being takenquote>

You mean when the Working Classes pick up their Guns and Molotovs to go torch the Parliament./Capitol, riot like crazy and murder Polititians. Pitchforks are so Dark Ages, its not a Witch hunt, its a Revolution!

And by what means can the Rich 'get rid of you'... by killing you? Last thing you want to do with an discontent populace is provoke them some more.

As for Machiavelli... hehe, I've read about him before... he talks about how keeping money is as neccesary as beating women... not the kind of thing I want to really get into but its no surprise he inspired Hitler.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[DocRorlach 25]

Welfare may well make lazy people a lot lazier. I've lived through both (C and S), and I would always opt for a combination: governments ought to be there to facilitate that people help themselves. The moment that basic tenet gets altered (as in social experiments both in the East and the West), the "people" lose out. Neither ideal is reachable, since S depends on everyone, where C depends on a few. And neither the minority or the majority will ever get it right. All you can do is try your own best.

That said, certain social services ought to be so basic a right (universal, affordable health care - see Sweden, Switzerland), free speech (see Canada, Holland), means to create wealth (see USA), or even the means do do diddlysquad (see UK, Ireland). Where it goes wrong is usually when folks take things for granted and thus permit the few (or the many) to get away with murder (see GWB, the environment, general health in the north-western hemisphere). And let's not forget the biggest folly: when people assume that C stands for democratic, and S for dogmatic. Whish it where that simple..

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: DocRorlachwhen people assume that C stands for democratic, and S for dogmatic. Whish it where that simple.quote>

Indeedy.  Capitalism does not always equal Democracy and Socialism does not always equal Dictatorship. There was a US polititian that once said 'America is in a constant battle between Democracy and Capitalism... and Capitalism is winning', I couldn't agree more...

[DocRorlach 25]

In a way this discussion is of course ironic on a site such as this one: playing SC4 is a capitalistic enterprise: nearly everything you do is motivated and fueled by the standard tenets of C. Merely a few options pay lipservice to soacial charters (Free Medical), but then in a very "un-American" way, at least coming from a US developed game.

And for those claiming that C&S cannot reside side-by-side: one of the most capitalistic societies I ever lived in was Singapore, often cited by Western officials as not really being democratic. It's social agenda is unparalleled when compared with Europe or North America. Yet so is its "capital" success: the reason for which can be found in the fact that politics, as practiced in the West, is at even the worst times merely a past-time. The primary government motivation is management, both social and capital.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

The Rich cannot afford to get rid of the Poor.  It is the Poor who work their rears off every day to make the Rich richer.  Where would the Waltons be if they lost their workers?  What would MacDonald's do?  Perhaps you meant a loss of work?

Barbarossaquote>

 

What I meant was, if you are a dictator or otherwise represented a government entity oppressing the rich. An oppressor of the rich would have a much shorter life.

Originally posted by: El Burro

As for Machiavelli... hehe, I've read about him before... he talks about how keeping money is as neccesary as beating women... not the kind of thing I want to really get into but its no surprise he inspired Hitler.quote>

 

Nietschze inspired AH in a more insidious way. Macchiavelli was more about the life of a leader. He made some very astute observations on obtaining power, and how to wield it most effectively.  The 1400s were a very different time, and wading through the cultural differences to get to the useful stuff is the hardest part of the text. However, the management tips n' tricks are still taught in the best business schools.

[DocRorlach 25]

Thought the thread was about C vs S? But well: to say that AH was inspired by anything but his own megalomanic ego is stretching it. And of course no power-crazed would-be-despot wants to get rid of the huddled masses - he/whe needs them, just look back at the Marcos family, or Suharto. Or, if you want to look more recently: Reagan and Bush, Mugabe, Putin, et al..

[TRNSTN 0]

The thing is with democracy, you get a lot of party politics, and in the end NOTHING gets done. Here in Canada, you get alot of squabbling and bickering but nothing ever gets accomplished. There should be some kind of overseer political entity that gives a general direction of where a country is headed for the in the long-term, 10, 25, 50 years even, and with that general plan the party politics can fight it out hhow to accomplish the long term goals but in the end still accomplish what was put into place. I'll give you an analogy- If you and three other friends are trying to get from the city to your friend's cottage out in the countryside you will take the highway. It's a little bit of a trip so you decide to take turns driving. Now whether your friends or you are a cautious or aggressive driver, one who does pitstops or just drives for a few hours straight, whether you avoid the roadkill or run it over, drive a hybrid or a hummer, you will all decide, but eventually you have to make it your friend's place by a certain time or the party is over. Party Politics and the state of Canadian politics seems like the four friends still in the city fighting over all these little details and not even making it onto the highway, or even worse they can't even agree on going to the cottage or not and end up having a [Edited for language] weekend.

[belfastuniguy 18]

The thing is with democracy, you get a lot of party politics, and in the end NOTHING gets donequote>

Not always the case, in the UK, the largest party has a majority that allows it to pass laws and reforms. So you are possibly basing that view on either ineffective government, weak government or a coalition government.

There should be some kind of overseer political entity that gives a general direction of where a country is headed for the in the long-term, 10, 25, 50 years even, and with that general plan the party politics can fight it out how to accomplish the long term goals but in the end still accomplish what was put into placequote>

Seems that sounds like an unaccountable political authority that could abuse their position. Despite safeguards, power like that could certainly influence a person.

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: TRNSTN The thing is with democracy, you get a lot of party politics, and in the end NOTHING gets done. Here in Canada, you get alot of squabbling and bickering but nothing ever gets accomplished. There should be some kind of overseer political entity that gives a general direction of where a country is headed for the in the long-term, 10, 25, 50 years even, and with that general plan the party politics can fight it out hhow to accomplish the long term goals but in the end still accomplish what was put into place. I'll give you an analogy- If you and three other friends are trying to get from the city to your friend's cottage out in the countryside you will take the highway. It's a little bit of a trip so you decide to take turns driving. Now whether your friends or you are a cautious or aggressive driver, one who does pitstops or just drives for a few hours straight, whether you avoid the roadkill or run it over, drive a hybrid or a hummer, you will all decide, but eventually you have to make it your friend's place by a certain time or the party is over. Party Politics and the state of Canadian politics seems like the four friends still in the city fighting over all these little details and not even making it onto the highway, or even worse they can't even agree on going to the cottage or not and end up having a [Edited for language] weekend.quote>

Such a government wouldn't be democratic, I assume that this entity wouldn't be electicble.

that entity would drive the country's politics, a driver..

 Wait, how is called a driver in german? Ah, yes... a Führer

[TRNSTN 0]

There should be some kind of overseer political entity that gives a general direction of where a country is headed for the in the long-term, 10, 25, 50 years even, and with that general plan the party politics can fight it out how to accomplish the long term goals but in the end still accomplish what was put into place

Seems that sounds like an unaccountable political authority that could abuse their position. Despite safeguards, power like that could certainly influence a person.quote>

Perhaps not a political entity holding power, but more like a watchdog group making sure the political parties are really accomplishing things and moving ahead. The watchdog group would be made up of randomly selected citizens*. Now the long term goals would be submitted to the citizen's group by individual citizen's or smaller feeder groups consisting of larger numbers of people, would be able to submit certain achievements and changes they would like to see in the next 10~50 years.

The issues that are addressed the most or talked about the most would be put in order of say top 5 or 10 issues, and with that all members of parliament (all politcal party members) would vote as an anonymous ballot selecting which issues to address first OR which top 5 issues require more urgent discussion/action.

Once these issues are selected, the fighting begins, but the watchdog group would set certain time frames and targets based on the voices of all the citizens and feeder groups before and ensure the politicians actually get somewhere.

Corporations would not be allowed to voice thier opinions, individuals and citizens and reigstered feeder groups, but these groups are to be filtered and traced because then corporations would just set up false feeder groups.

The point of these feeder groups is for larger gorups of individuals with similar concerns to give a larger general idea of what issues wished to be addressed.

This does sound a little complicated and apologies for the long post. But I've tried to make it so you don't have totalitarian political groups and one man power platforms dictating.

*Randomly selected citizens, once selected they either choose to be or not be on the citizen's group, or you can enter yourself into a pool, and continue your life but once you're selected your serve for a few years and of course this would be an on-going process.

BTW what do you guys think of that? Randomly selected citizens seve in the government for several years, but it's mandatory for almost everyone. (anyone ever read Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series?)

[DocRorlach 25]

TRNSTN (how on earth do you pronounce that??): apart from "demos kratein" (people's rule) being an illusionary goal even if there were such a thing as a good politician, the Singapore example shows that management of a country, particularly with a clear profit motive (albeit aimed at 3 mill. people) is invariably superior to politics by debate. Even the Greeks who came up with the senatorial system ultimately defered power to single ruler (often a member of the Tyrant family, which has lately gotten a bad name - thanks George W.).

belfastuniguy: but look what that majority government did, for centuries, to Ireland; what it is doing now to the rest of British Isles. Particularily in the UK, neither capitalism nor socialism has a real chance and when, as Thatcher and Blair tried, they mesh a bit of both, you get a country that can barely manage from day to day. That "Commonwealth" was always meant for an uncommon few.

In today's world, particularily in the industrialized north, there are too many competing forces creaming off at the top, and the net result is always the loss of individual freedom and a life of diminishing returns for the majority below. The trouble with socialism is that it demands to much of the individual, whereas capitalism avoids the individual like a plague. Maybe there ought toi be a third alternative?