Economic Classes explained - General

Oh, I meant to add after those quotes. What defines a country with 'ideal conditions' for socialism? Wealth? Infrastructure? Those 'ideal conditions' were created through the application of democratic capitalism, not socialism. What is intrinsic to those areas that means they are well suited for socialism? You must realize that those countries are also ones with a traditionally high standard of living for the middle and upper classes. Socialism has historically been accompanied by a lowering of living standards for those types of people. How would you remedy the unrest that would inevitably be created that way? Oh. My merge.

[QUOTE=RB33;52446973]Hopefully, there wouldn't be so many products. Instead of having 110 kinds of flavoured icecream, it will probably be enough with 20. So many useless different kinds that could and should be done away with.[/QUOTE] I would totally pay to watch a bunch of commies argue which ice cream flavors are bourgeois excesses. [QUOTE=RB33;52446973]Well, any group of people assigned to that task, wheather they are professionals or have a civic duty to help counting.[/QUOTE] Assigned by who? Some sort of Supreme Leader?

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52447005]Assigned by who? Some sort of Supreme Leader?[/QUOTE] By direct vote or democratically elected council.

[QUOTE=RB33;52447012]By direct vote or democratically elected council.[/QUOTE] Sounds like there's a lot of voting going on, and not a lot of decision making and working

[QUOTE=Zombii;52446984]RB33, you are from Sweden, is it not possible for you to attend university or higher education of some kind? Please don't make a mistake, I'm not calling you stupid, but from the things you've said in this thread it appears that it may benefit you to be in an environment where not only could you study and perhaps work towards making your ideal society appear, but also to learn about the failings of past socialist societies and the difficulties a society like that would face.[/QUOTE] Should everyone attend university if they want to change their surroundings? All people have a voice, limiting it to the people in universities would be elitist and undemocratic. You don't need a university to learn the benefits and failures of ideologies. [QUOTE]These things are so much deeper and more complex than you seem to realize. It isn't as simple as "well put the people in charge of their own stuff and they'll only make good stuff that is durable and lasts forever!". Not every company practices planned obsolescence. Not even a majority of them. It is often simple difficult to make a product which performs optimally in every category. [/QUOTE] It will put us on the right path, that's the goal. [QUOTE]I personally believe in the same optimal society that you do, but I don't think it will be achieved until we have achieved post-scarcity, and most likely it will be governed not by the people, but by some kind of automated machine intelligence or system to reduce the corruption of human influence. [/QUOTE] I'm a believer in humans, not science fiction. [QUOTE]I can't find the post where you described your personal situation, although I seem to recall you posting it in this thread a few pages ago. But honestly you seem to be using this dream of a perfect socialist utopia as some kind of escape from your personal reality, blaming all the shortfalls of your immediate situation on some kind of capitalist boogeyman. [/QUOTE] Making people unemployed because the markets no longer desires them, indebting people to make money and making it hard to make a living self-employed and forcing you to seek employment at other people. Not freely allowing you to choose and also change your mind without potenially severe consequences. [QUOTE]All you've said throughout this thread is 'capitalism is bad because it is a system in which the strong exploit the weak'. However, when you're confronted with the argument which people in this thread are presenting, which is that every 'pure' socialist state that has existed up until now has done exactly that, to a degree which is far worse than existing capitalist systems, you simply claim that they weren't 'real' socialism, or that their leaders were faulted. If socialism is truly so perfect, shouldn't it be able to overcome the faults of just one leader? A failed state comes about from far more reasons than simply one man being corrupt. Sure, these states may not apply to your arguments because you're arguing for a different kind of socialism, but lessons can be learned and we can look back at history, even if they aren't a perfect match. Disregarding them out of hand is an excellent way to make sure these mistakes are repeated.[/QUOTE] You wouldn't claim authortarianism and the lack of free will is a good argument against democracy. Because that makes no sense. Neither does comparing Stalin, a power-hungery psychopathic dictator with democratic councils elected and consisting by ordinary people. [QUOTE]Also, previously in this thread you've said that you would 'prefer to remain an activist'. Well, as it's said, you have to be the change you want to see in the world. What better way is there to remain an activist for your ideal society if not through attending university, becoming accredited in the field, and then working to make that dream a reality. How is 'activism' via attempting to spread the fervor of socialism on online forums and social media more of being an activist than actually attempting to bring it to bear?[/QUOTE] Expect me to become more involved in real life activities in the future. This arguing is for the sake of preventing you from isolating yourself in a capitalist safe space bubble. It's healthy to hear counter-arguments to what you hold dear. [editline]8th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Laserbeams;52447020]Sounds like there's a lot of voting going on, and not a lot of decision making and working[/QUOTE] Also known as true freedom. Living standards are so high and work hours so low, that your largest problem is deciding what to vote on. [editline]8th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Zombii;52446998]Oh, I meant to add after those quotes. What defines a country with 'ideal conditions' for socialism? Wealth? Infrastructure? Those 'ideal conditions' were created through the application of democratic capitalism, not socialism. What is intrinsic to those areas that means they are well suited for socialism? You must realize that those countries are also ones with a traditionally high standard of living for the middle and upper classes. Socialism has historically been accompanied by a lowering of living standards for those types of people. How would you remedy the unrest that would inevitably be created that way? Oh. My merge.[/QUOTE] An industrial society with large technological progress. (Which few socialist countries have been to start with) They were created by capitalism, not democratic capitalism. When socialism arose in the 1800s, most industrial countries were not democracies. Upper classes are a minority and will have to deal with their wealth being abolished to reduce poverty and improve labour conditions. The middle classes will benefit also with more free time, better working terms, more safety nets and less worries. I need to go away for a couple of hours, but I'll answer any questions later. But really look up a socialist FAQ somewhere.

[QUOTE=RB33;52446997]It's a waste of labour, time and resources to make something that breaks easily. At different levels, yes. I'm sure companies have meetings on what to focus their attention on. Here's someone who doesn't even understand basic moneyless society. Because work's need to get done and people want something to do. And you can even throw in some benefits for those doing more (that is not money). Automate it with machines or reward people for it. Worst case, have a civic duty for it. They are not forcing, managers are also workers, just with different duties. If they are paid the same and even choosen by the company staff (for the ones without special education required).[/QUOTE] So people get benefits for working dirty jobs. How is that different to the concept of money? And what if people still don't want to work these jobs? Give a higher benefit? What if the people work together and decline working such a job leading to benefits getting to ridiclous heights? Wouldn't this lead to a waste of resources? Where do you stop? You are thinking to idealistic about humans. Socialism will never work as long as humans are involved. Humans are selfish animals. They always want to have the advantage over another. It is in our blood to compete and the winner gets the spoils. And that is why capitalism has been so successful. Capitalism nurtures the human nature.

[QUOTE=RB33;52447047]Should everyone attend university if they want to change their surroundings? All people have a voice, limiting it to the people in universities would be elitist and undemocratic. You don't need a university to learn the benefits and failures of ideologies.[/QUOTE] Knowing what the hell you're talking about would help with having a discussion, though [QUOTE=RB33;52447047]Also known as true freedom. Living standards are so high and work hours so low, that your largest problem is deciding what to vote on.[/QUOTE] Why would work hours become any lower than they are now? Will people magically start needing less than they do now?

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52447084]Why would work hours become any lower than they are now? Will people magically start needing less than they do now?[/QUOTE] Instead of having people work 40+ hours to make all the money they necessarily need. They only need to work as long as they get stuff done or are needed. If you reached your quota or task for the week. You get the rest of the week off. Also to stop unemployment, reduce working hours and employ others for the hours freed up.

[QUOTE=RB33;52447098]Instead of having people work 40+ hours to make all the money they necessarily need. They only need to work as long as they get stuff done or are needed. If you reached your quota or task for the week. You get the rest of the week off. Also to stop unemployment, reduce working hours and employ others for the hours freed up.[/QUOTE] That's not what I'm asking. You can't have farmers and butchers and bakers work less than they need to feed everyone, or everyone will fucking starve to death. Why would their work hours be any smaller than they are now?

[QUOTE=RB33;52447098]Instead of having people work 40+ hours to make all the money they necessarily need. They only need to work as long as they get stuff done or are needed. If you reached your quota or task for the week. You get the rest of the week off. Also to stop unemployment, reduce working hours and employ others for the hours freed up.[/QUOTE] You have absolutely no work experience yet you speak like you know everything. Jobs can be worked part-time, full-time or flexible depending on the amount of work. I for example can decide myself to work only 2 days in a week when there is not a lot to do, or when there is crunch time and we have to get project done I also work on weekends. This and overtime gives me extra compensation. Your point comes up with stopping unemployment. I thought unemployment doesn't matter in socialism? You don't get money for working, so why work at all?

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52447102]That's not what I'm asking. You can't have farmers and butchers and bakers work less than they need to feed everyone, or everyone will fucking starve to death. Why would their work hours be any smaller than they are now?[/QUOTE] Because we employ more bakers or automate the process in future, lowering their individual working hours. [editline]9th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52447123]You have absolutely no work experience yet you speak like you know everything. Jobs can be worked part-time, full-time or flexible depending on the amount of work. I for example can decide myself to work only 2 days in a week when there is not a lot to do, or when there is crunch time and we have to get project done I also work on weekends. This and overtime gives me extra compensation. Your point comes up with stopping unemployment. I thought unemployment doesn't matter in socialism? You don't get money for working, so why work at all?[/QUOTE] Because only people with certain glorious working experience knows how to organize workplaces. Working as a low-level worker doesn't automatically makes you an expert either. You say like I don't know this, yet it's in the text you quoted. What's considered part-time now will likely become the new full time, with or without socialism. We might only work 1-2 days a week in the future. Unless, it's a vital service, no one should work on the weekends. And I already answered your employment question, try reading my posts instead.

[QUOTE=RB33;52448063]Because we employ more bakers or automate the process in future, lowering their individual working hours.[/QUOTE] So instead of having one person do a job, we'll have 3 people share the job. That sounds like the very opposite of efficiency just for the sake of lowering work hours.

[QUOTE=RB33;52448063]Because we employ more bakers or automate the process in future, lowering their individual working hours. [editline]9th July 2017[/editline] Because only people with certain glorious working experience knows how to organize workplaces. Working as a low-level worker doesn't automatically makes you an expert either. You say like I don't know this, yet it's in the text you quoted. What's considered part-time now will likely become the new full time, with or without socialism. We might only work 1-2 days a week in the future. Unless, it's a vital service, no one should work on the weekends. And I already answered your employment question, try reading my posts instead.[/QUOTE] So you don't like partying on the weekends? Because being a bartender certainly is no vital service. And who the hell needs to fuel up their car on the weekend when driving to some family member on the other side of the country. Not important. You need groceries on the weekend? Bad luck, no one should be working on the weekend according to you. Etc..... You wrote how people are forced to work 40+ hours in the week in the capitalistic system. And I told you how it is in the real world right now. People have the choice to work less or work more. That was my point. And it makes it seem like you have no idea of the current work situation in real life.

The toughest part discussing with RB33 is the absolutely massive number of false presuppositions that he's assuming as foundational to any points he makes.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52448104]So instead of having one person do a job, we'll have 3 people share the job. That sounds like the very opposite of efficiency just for the sake of lowering work hours.[/QUOTE] With working less, they are more rested. Experiments with 6 hour working days have shown to increase effectiveness. [editline]9th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52448115]So you don't like partying on the weekends? Because being a bartender certainly is no vital service. And who the hell needs to fuel up their car on the weekend when driving to some family member on the other side of the country. Not important. You need groceries on the weekend? Bad luck, no one should be working on the weekend according to you. Etc.....[/QUOTE] Notice how I wrote vital? Fuel and food are vital for modern life, bartending isn't, unless most people are alcoholics. [QUOTE]You wrote how people are forced to work 40+ hours in the week in the capitalistic system. And I told you how it is in the real world right now. People have the choice to work less or work more. That was my point. And it makes it seem like you have no idea of the current work situation in real life.[/QUOTE] Ín Germany that is? Some are refused to increase their working hours and some must work multiple jobs. How do you explain that?

[QUOTE=RB33;52448125]With working less, they are more rested. Experiments with 6 hour working days have shown to increase effectiveness.[/QUOTE] A claim like this requires a source. Even if you gained a slight increase in efficiency, you would still have to overcome the 20% loss from losing 2 hours of productivity.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52448123]The toughest part discussing with RB33 is the absolutely massive number of false presuppositions that he's assuming as foundational to any points he makes.[/QUOTE] And you like to ignore any flaws of capitalism in favour of calling out socialism everytime? Have you admitted once that capitalism have done bad stuff? Because I only see you complain about the alternative? Is capitalism flawless then or do you have legitimate criticism?

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52448104]So instead of having one person do a job, we'll have 3 people share the job. That sounds like the very opposite of efficiency just for the sake of lowering work hours.[/QUOTE] And don't forget that you have to train as many of these people in their specific field as you need to bring the hours down. Which will be very problematic when it is a highly skilled and very specific job. It is very expensive, not just on money which RB33 loathes, but on time and resources. So let's see how this would work out with 3 programmers on a project for developing an app instead of just one. Dev 1 programs one first part in his dedicated time but isn't able to finish it. So there has to be a turnover to Dev 2. Dev 1 has to explain things of what he did and because Dev 2 is better skilled at his job he also asked by Dev 1 did the things he did his way. Dev 2 thinks differently and instead scraps all of Dev 1 code and does it his way. And after Dev 2 is done for the 2 hours of the day he turns over to Dev 3 who just agrees as he is not really into the whole project and continues on working on it, making mistakes. This all takes a tremendous amount of time and resources, which in the end was your argument for socialism and its planned economy. Don't you see that your whole argument is kinda contradictory and full of logical holes?

ultimately the goal we should be working towards is the overall reduction of hours a person has to work (probably one of the noblest human endeavours), but doing the way RB33 seems to do it is not very feasible at all it would be very nice however to move towards either the 35 hour week or (more feasibly) giving people gradually more holidays and flexitime

[QUOTE=sgman91;52448134]A claim like this requires a source. Even if you gained a slight increase in efficiency, you would still have to overcome the 20% loss from losing 2 hours of productivity.[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-17/how-the-six-hour-workday-actually-saves-money[/url] Efficiency doesn't really trouble us when we can already get everything we need done several times over. [editline]9th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52448150]And don't forget that you have to train as many of these people in their specific field as you need to bring the hours down. Which will be very problematic when it is a highly skilled and very specific job. It is very expensive, not just on money which RB33 loathes, but on time and resources. So let's see how this would work out with 3 programmers on a project for developing an app instead of just one. Dev 1 programs one first part in his dedicated time but isn't able to finish it. So there has to be a turnover to Dev 2. Dev 1 has to explain things of what he did and because Dev 2 is better skilled at his job he also asked by Dev 1 did the things he did his way. Dev 2 thinks differently and instead scraps all of Dev 1 code and does it his way. And after Dev 2 is done for the 2 hours of the day he turns over to Dev 3 who just agrees as he is not really into the whole project and continues on working on it, making mistakes. This all takes a tremendous amount of time and resources, which in the end was your argument for socialism and its planned economy. Don't you see that your whole argument is kinda contradictory and full of logical holes?[/QUOTE] Maybe, slow down the process. Then, why rush something when money isn't the reason? You neither gain or lose money by getting it done in time. Let 1 guy work on it for 4 weeks instead of 1. Unless, it's saving lives or something, there is no rush and the company won't go bankrupt because of the delay. Now can you come with examples except in computer-related work where this applies. An equally trained doctor can replace his coworker after a working day, the factory worker will be replaced by another one doing the same simple work. This system works flawlessly in most cases, and in the ones with delays, no one will lose their job and livelihood because of it. It's simply expected. The primary argument for socialism is not effectiveness or less waste of resources but democracy and increased living standards.

[QUOTE=RB33;52448125]With working less, they are more rested. Experiments with 6 hour working days have shown to increase effectiveness.[/QUOTE] Citations? [editline]9th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE] Notice how I wrote vital? Fuel and food are vital for modern life, bartending isn't, unless most people are alcoholics.[/QUOTE] So you are not a friend of socializing with other people? Ever gone out on a weekend in the city? What about taxi drivers, air plane pilots, maintenance people for buildings, infrastructure, plumbing, electricians, hospitals, construction, service people for any kind of machine/equipment, etc... There are a whole lot of people working on the weekend. I am really surprised you even think that the weekend is such an important time span, as it is just invented by humans. [QUOTE] Ín Germany that is? Some are refused to increase their working hours and some must work multiple jobs. How do you explain that?[/QUOTE] ... What does this even mean? On the one hand you write that people are refused to increase their working hours, but on the other hand that some people are forced to work multiple jobs? To the first point: Where do you get that people are refused to increase their working hours? And how is that even part of the whole argument about lowering the working hours? I am sorry, but I don't understand how your writings are fitting into the context of our discussion. To the second point: The people who work multiple jobs are working part time on said jobs, so when someone is working 20 hours a week on the one job, and 20 hours a week on the other job, it can be counted as a full time 40 hours a week job. There is no one in Germany who works 2 full time jobs at the same time. There are laws against that. If you are living in Germany and work 3 part time jobs, then you are just bad at managing your finances. And if you complain about people being forced to work low wage jobs, they are encouraged by the government to get a degree at a university. And they are getting paid to do that so instead of working they can concentrate on getting the stuff they teach the university right. All that you have to do after finishing your degree is to pay back the maximum of 10000 Euro to the state. If the state gave your more money for paying the rent while you studied like in my case say 12430 Euro, you only have to pay back 10000 Euro. I was born into a poor household and took the chance to study in a field of my interest which is also in high demand in the industry. And as far as I know, this is also possible in Sweden. So everyone who complains that they are forced to work for low wage jobs, well, you got a chance for a government assisted degree and you simply didn't take it. You are to blame. And if a degree from a university is too hard for you, you could have taken an apprenticeship in one of all these companies offering an introduction to blue collar trades. What I don't understand is that you are living in Sweden and have this mentality. There is no true capitalism in any western country. Not even in the USA. What we have is a social market economy, in which capitalism is regulated to be balanced with social policies. And Sweden has welfare, including state supported higher education, to make kids of a lower class family have a fair chance at improving their life. [editline]9th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=RB33;52448164][url]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-17/how-the-six-hour-workday-actually-saves-money[/url] Efficiency doesn't really trouble us when we can already get everything we need done several times over. [editline]9th July 2017[/editline] Maybe, slow down the process. Then, why rush something when money isn't the reason? You neither gain or lose money by getting it done in time. Let 1 guy work on it for 4 weeks instead of 1. Unless, it's saving lives or something, there is no rush and the company won't go bankrupt because of the delay. Now can you come with examples except in computer-related work where this applies. An equally trained doctor can replace his coworker after a working day, the factory worker will be replaced by another one doing the same simple work. This system works flawlessly in most cases, and in the ones with delays, no one will lose their job and livelihood because of it. It's simply expected. The primary argument for socialism is not effectiveness or less waste of resources but democracy and increased living standards.[/QUOTE] Now I have to laugh. A few posts ago you were arguing about how capitalism was the fault for printers being broken too fast and now suddenly you are talking about how socialism isn't about less waste. That is contradictory.

[QUOTE=RB33;52448142]And you like to ignore any flaws of capitalism in favour of calling out socialism everytime? Have you admitted once that capitalism have done bad stuff? Because I only see you complain about the alternative? Is capitalism flawless then or do you have legitimate criticism?[/QUOTE] Here's the difference. When I disagree with you, I try to present complete arguments with examples, numbers, etc. So, for example, you said that we made worse products than they used to 50 years ago. I responded by giving an example of a washing machine that is FAR less expensive nowadays and is still more effective at doing it's job. I also noted that you can buy a top of the line modern washing machine for the same price they paid for a standard version 50 years ago. You responded by just stating that we should lower prices on the top of the line versions as if it's a hard fact, and did nothing to response to the fact that even cheap machines do more than the machines of the past. You totally failed to respond to what I had presented because it clashed with your preconceived assumptions. [editline]8th July 2017[/editline] Of course there are problems, but that's not a useful observation. EVERY system has problems. The question isn't, "What has problems." It's, "What system has the least problems." As of yet, capitalism has had the least problems by FAR. We've created the most wealthy society ever seen in the history of humanity. We've essentially abolished starvation in the western world, an unheard of feat. We've given people the freedom to do whatever they want with their lives, something that was unprecedented. Etc. We have the most confortable, equal, and safe lives of anyone ever in history. To just say, "Pff, this is a horrible system that oppresses the poor," is beyond ignorant and naive.

[QUOTE=RB33;52440341]I would honestly love working in a socialist administration. Were I know every action I take will affect the people and they hopefully trust me to do the right thing. I'm an independent film maker and sometimes work in a Café. Neither pays well. Lack of "proper" work experience isn't an excuse for the system, we have. It can be improved and should.[/QUOTE] imagine having absolutely no work ethic and expecting people to trust you in a position that requires you to do work

[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52448245]Citations?[/QUOTE] It's linked in an article above. [QUOTE]So you are not a friend of socializing with other people? Ever gone out on a weekend in the city? What about taxi drivers, air plane pilots, maintenance people for buildings, infrastructure, plumbing, electricians, hospitals, construction, service people for any kind of machine/equipment, etc... There are a whole lot of people working on the weekend.[/QUOTE] The goal is having the least of amount of people working then. Have the people doing these take turns doing them every weekend. So at least everyone gets a workfree weekend over a month. [QUOTE]I am really surprised you even think that the weekend is such an important time span, as it is just invented by humans.[/QUOTE] A common set of days where most people can be off work and enjoy each others company would be a aim, that we should accomplish. [QUOTE]What does this even mean? On the one hand you write that people are refused to increase their working hours, but on the other hand that some people are forced to work multiple jobs?[/QUOTE] Both happen in capitalism. Some are too expensive to employ full time, so they recieve less than optimal wages while others recieve less wages forcing them take to more than job to pay the bills. [QUOTE]To the first point: Where do you get that people are refused to increase their working hours? And how is that even part of the whole argument about lowering the working hours? I am sorry, but I don't understand how your writings are fitting into the context of our discussion.[/QUOTE] It's a criticism of capitalism, that for some, even if they wanted to work more, they are refused. While in socialism they could choose their working amount freely. [QUOTE]To the second point: The people who work multiple jobs are working part time on said jobs, so when someone is working 20 hours a week on the one job, and 20 hours a week on the other job, it can be counted as a full time 40 hours a week job. There is no one in Germany who works 2 full time jobs at the same time. There are laws against that. If you are living in Germany and work 3 part time jobs, then you are just bad at managing your finances. And if you complain about people being forced to work low wage jobs, they are encouraged by the government to get a degree at a university. And they are getting paid to do that so instead of working they can concentrate on getting the stuff they teach the university right. All that you have to do after finishing your degree is to pay back the maximum of 10000 Euro to the state. If the state gave your more money for paying the rent while you studied like in my case say 12430 Euro, you only have to pay back 10000 Euro. [/QUOTE] In a more developed country like Germany, is it the same for the US or the third world? Poorer parts of Europe? [QUOTE]I was born into a poor household and took the chance to study in a field of my interest which is also in high demand in the industry. And as far as I know, this is also possible in Sweden. So everyone who complains that they are forced to work for low wage jobs, well, you got a chance for a government assisted degree and you simply didn't take it. You are to blame. [/QUOTE] No, low wage shouldn't be low wage just for the sake of it. Wages should be set according to the hardship and length of the work. Some low wage jobs should be high wage really. [QUOTE]And if a degree from a university is too hard for you, you could have taken an apprenticeship in one of all these companies offering an introduction to blue collar trades. [/QUOTE] I don't know the sucess rate on that one. 5% it seems after checking, out of 85.000 promised new jobs, only 4.000 happened. [QUOTE]What I don't understand is that you are living in Sweden and have this mentality. There is no true capitalism in any western country. Not even in the USA. What we have is a social market economy, in which capitalism is regulated to be balanced with social policies. And Sweden has welfare, including state supported higher education, to make kids of a lower class family have a fair chance at improving their life.[/QUOTE] And it's still a bad system and should be improved. When you want things like radical local democracy and equality. You can't just "Say, well some regulation and a welfare state is good enough." [QUOTE]Now I have to laugh. A few posts ago you were arguing about how capitalism was the fault for printers being broken too fast and now suddenly you are talking about how socialism isn't about less waste. That is contradictory.[/QUOTE] You only read what you want to do read, apperently. [QUOTE=RB33;52448164]The [B]primary [/B]argument for socialism is not effectiveness or less waste of resources but democracy and increased living standards.[/QUOTE] [editline]9th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52448283]Here's the difference. When I disagree with you, I try to present complete arguments with examples, numbers, etc. So, for example, you said that we made worse products than they used to 50 years ago. I responded by giving an example of a washing machine that is FAR less expensive nowadays and is still more effective at doing it's job. I also noted that you can buy a top of the line modern washing machine for the same price they paid for a standard version 50 years ago.[/QUOTE] Technology becomes cheaper over time, so the durability developed in the 80s should carry over to the cheaper models today. [QUOTE]You responded by just stating that we should lower prices on the top of the line versions as if it's a hard fact, and did nothing to response to the fact that even cheap machines do more than the machines of the past.[/QUOTE] If they break and you have to pay the same sum again, it's less effective in your savings account. [QUOTE]Of course there are problems, but that's not a useful observation. EVERY system has problems. The question isn't, "What has problems." It's, "What system has the least problems." As of yet, capitalism has had the least problems by FAR.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] We've created the most wealthy society ever seen in the history of humanity.[/QUOTE] For what, to have the upper classes enjoy most of it? Why don't we redistribute the wealth to make it affect more people? [QUOTE]We've essentially abolished starvation in the western world, an unheard of feat.[/QUOTE] Any competent system could do that. [QUOTE]We've given people the freedom to do whatever they want with their lives, something that was unprecedented.[/QUOTE] If you have the money, yes. Conditional freedom, that is. [QUOTE]Etc. We have the most confortable, equal, and safe lives of anyone ever in history. To just say, "Pff, this is a horrible system that oppresses the poor," is beyond ignorant and naive.[/QUOTE] "Well, some parts are good and better then fedualism that came before it." It's not different than claiming the medieval era was better than antiquity and earlier eras. It does oppress the poor, you're denying that? Socialism is a better system, because it aims to serve the people, not businesses and the wealthy. We're not more equal today than previously in history, the opposite really.

RB33 I've got two things for you. One is a question. What if I'm a lazy bum, don't want to work and I just want to play video games all day? Are you going to force me or let me starve? Hello stalin. Second, let me tell you how your socialism works. Barely anyone believes in the system and wants to give his best so they slack, the effectiveness is shit. Why work as hard as you can if you're not gonna get more? Unless you want to introduce currency without calling it currency. You get empty shelves in markets, you have to wait for furniture for years. The queues are so bad that there's actually a job of selling places in the line. People start dealing with countertrade. They start exchanging services or services for goods. The queues get even worse unless you cheat. Unless you can get the vast majority to be super invested in your socialism and work their ass off purely for the idea and community, it's an utopian system that's going to fail every single time and if you want to keep that system after it starts crumbling down you have to scare and force people to work. [editline]9th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=RB33;52449777] Socialism is a better system, because it aims to serve the people, not businesses and the wealthy.[/QUOTE] It's a wonderful, wonderful fantasy. Impossible to implement.

Work hard, get payed. I don't see the problem at all. [editline]9th July 2017[/editline] has no job no work experience Probably young can't/won't find or strive for something better in forms of work or experience CAPITALISM SUCKS SOCIALISM NUMBER 1. If you are so unhappy at where you are, start your own company and lease yourself, that's what I did. See if your "socialism" works out in the real world.

[QUOTE=DickCoco;52449814]Work hard, get payed. I don't see the problem at all. [editline]9th July 2017[/editline] has no job no work experience Probably young can't/won't find or strive for something better in forms of work or experience CAPITALISM SUCKS SOCIALISM NUMBER 1. If you are so unhappy at where you are, start your own company and lease yourself, that's what I did. See if your "socialism" works out in the real world.[/QUOTE] I would aid others in running their companies in socialism, to democratize their workplaces and help them connect with production goals. That's what I would do if I could. I'm not starting another company for me to exploit the system, I would join a co-op in that case. Anyway, this isn't about me. For however much I feel disappointed and is affected by the system. Others have it worse and I save my sympathy for those. [editline]9th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;52449807]RB33 I've got two things for you. One is a question. What if I'm a lazy bum, don't want to work and I just want to play video games all day? Are you going to force me or let me starve? Hello stalin.[/QUOTE] Neither, you always have access to food. But you won't get any video games unless you work. [QUOTE]Second, let me tell you how your socialism works. Barely anyone believes in the system and wants to give his best so they slack, the effectiveness is shit. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Why work as hard as you can if you're not gonna get more? Unless you want to introduce currency without calling it currency.[/QUOTE] There are rewards for working more, these are not traditional currencies. But only able to be used by yourself and not transerferable to anyone else. [QUOTE]You get empty shelves in markets, you have to wait for furniture for years. The queues are so bad that there's actually a job of selling places in the line. People start dealing with countertrade. They start exchanging services or services for goods. The queues get even worse unless you cheat.[/QUOTE] You say this but how do you know? Have you lived in a proper socialist society where everyone is power is directly accountable to the people and can be replaced someone else if they doesn't do their job? Where it's in your direct interest to do a good job, you're not disconnected from the production. How well you do affects your own well-being. [QUOTE]Unless you can get the vast majority to be super invested in your socialism and work their ass off purely for the idea and community, it's an utopian system that's going to fail every single time and if you want to keep that system after it starts crumbling down you have to scare and force people to work. [/QUOTE] So you rather stay at home without food as the system collapse, without any goods because your were to lazy to work in order to receieve your share? If everyone doesn't work, you won't get a decent living standard. It's in your best interest to contribute to it in order to retain your own living standards and even improve them. You don't need to force them as they will see their living standards decline (on a societal level), making it a necessity to get back to work, unless they want to lose what they have.

[QUOTE=RB33;52449890]Neither, you always have access to food. But you won't get any video games unless you work.[/QUOTE] So I work for a month, get the shit I want and then never work again. Or I get the game from someone who does work. Or I get the game from my family member that works. How do you want to implement this system countrywise if you can't even figure this simple thing out. [QUOTE=RB33;52449890]There are rewards for working more, these are not traditional currencies. But only able to be used by yourself and not transerferable to anyone else.[/QUOTE] What rewards and why can't I transfer them? Countertrade is a thing. [QUOTE=RB33;52449890]You say this but how do you know? Have you lived in a proper socialist society where everyone is power is directly accountable to the people and can be replaced someone else if they doesn't do their job? [/QUOTE] "Proper socialist society" well then you haven't lived in the perfect capitalist society that's why you are against it. [QUOTE=RB33;52449890]Where it's in your direct interest to do a good job, you're not disconnected from the production. How well you do affects your own well-being.[/QUOTE] But that's the problem. Without currency you are disconnected from your productivity. [QUOTE=RB33;52449890]So you rather stay at home without food as the system collapse, without any goods because your were to lazy to work in order to receieve your share? If everyone doesn't work, you won't get a decent living standard. It's in your best interest to contribute to it in order to retain your own living standards and even improve them. You don't need to force them as they will see their living standards decline (on a societal level), making it a necessity to get back to work, unless they want to lose what they have.[/QUOTE] This is your fundamental problem, that's not how human beings work. This is why your socialist state is a unachievable fantasy. In capitalism if you slack you get less paid, you are instantly motivated to work harder. In your dream world, you are not directly influencing your well being, you influence the system as a whole. One person can do almost nothing and their situation won't change, but when many people do it, it starts to change for everyone. But it's not a motivator. A single person will not make a change in either direction. How often have you heard people say "my vote doesn't change anything" that's exactly the attitude people get in your socialism. Imagine if there are people too lazy to go and vote (which is easy and not very time consuming) how many people will not work their ass off the whole week. You go and tell someone "It's in your best interest to contribute to it in order to retain your own living standards and even improve them." in your socialist state and he's going to answer you "well but there's thousands of other people slacking, I'm not gonna work for them".

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;52452317]So I work for a month, get the shit I want and then never work again. Or I get the game from someone who does work. Or I get the game from my family member that works. How do you want to implement this system countrywise if you can't even figure this simple thing out.[/QUOTE] How many do you think this will be a problem for? A small minority, not enough to disturb the balance, most likely. [QUOTE]What rewards and why can't I transfer them? Countertrade is a thing.[/QUOTE] To buy your video games, a new car or pool outside your house. Things to keep you working. If they aren't personal, people can't simply live off others and don't work themselves. [QUOTE]"Proper socialist society" well then you haven't lived in the perfect capitalist society that's why you are against it.[/QUOTE] Perfect capitalism is as much an utopia as perfect socialism. [QUOTE]But that's the problem. Without currency you are disconnected from your productivity.[/QUOTE] I disagree. [QUOTE]This is your fundamental problem, that's not how human beings work. This is why your socialist state is a unachievable fantasy. In capitalism if you slack you get less paid, you are instantly motivated to work harder. In your dream world, you are not directly influencing your well being, you influence the system as a whole.[/QUOTE] As said right now that there are rewards for hard workers. [QUOTE]One person can do almost nothing and their situation won't change, but when many people do it, it starts to change for everyone. But it's not a motivator. A single person will not make a change in either direction.[/QUOTE] If you get your neighbour and friend to do it and they in turn spread the word. Change happens. You have expectations on each other and you don't want to fail those.[QUOTE]How often have you heard people say "my vote doesn't change anything" that's exactly the attitude people get in your socialism. Imagine if there are people too lazy to go and vote (which is easy and not very time consuming) how many people will not work their ass off the whole week.[/QUOTE] They don't need to even, working hours are lowered. You might only need to go to work 3 days a week. [QUOTE]You go and tell someone "It's in your best interest to contribute to it in order to retain your own living standards and even improve them." in your socialist state and he's going to answer you "well but there's thousands of other people slacking, I'm not gonna work for them".[/QUOTE] And there are thousands of people not slacking, including you. You still want food on the table, which you will not get if people decide to stop working. People will get back to work due to pure necessity. Else their electrity will fail, their food storage be empty and their car without fuel. And they're back to the 1800s, they don't want that, so they work.

one of the big problems with capitalism is that once everyone earns enough to sustain basic needs and life in general, economic growth slows down to a stop due to the lack of demand for new stuff. but humans aren't like that at all, for they are never actually satisfied with the current level of material possessions they've got and usually desire to have more (often in a social setting they want more than their peers). the other problem with capitalism is that it generated increasing complexity (as is the nature of expanding production, technology, distribution, etc) which eats up an increasing share of resources and the return on investment declines the more you pump into it.