Economic Classes explained - General

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52420946]Never said you can't have a suitable welfare state to cover basic needs so yeh. That's nice and emotional but it ties into why capitalism is a net good thing. These countries are DEVELOPING, and unfortunately, grueling early phases development is how it has historically always happened.[/QUOTE] Socialism is of course also a net good thing at the very least, much more good if you're not overly concerned with your "rights" to make money and be rich. "Developing country" is just an excuse you use while you exploit them. Without them the modern western economy would crash. [QUOTE]Even in the west things were hell, most cities for the longest time didn't grow naturally because you'd die from work related illness, starvation, general illness, etc. so the only reason the population grew is because rural people moved in. And in the USSR? Well, Holodomor and the other two massive famines speak for themselves. [/QUOTE] In the feudal era, yes. These are not feudal countries anymore, they're capitalist but just not as developed. [QUOTE]You can't just point at problems and say that they mean the system needs to be abandoned. You have to prove that an alternative is feasible and ideal. [/QUOTE] I can and I will point to these problems, the alternative is socialism and has been for the last 150 years. [QUOTE]Also if westerners won't benefit from socialism (which i greatly disagree on, if it worked,) and socialism in third world countries doesn't work as you also said before, does this mean socialism is for nobody?[/QUOTE] Everyone benefits from socialism (except the rich), most westerners are still not rich. Socialism is intended for an industrial economy, the third world wasn't one of those 60 years ago. If tried today, it would be more successful. But more importantly, Western countries, the core of the global economy must adopt socialism before the third world can properly function with socialism. When the interests of the capitalists are gone, the interest of the community remains.

[QUOTE=RB33;52421366]Socialism is of course also a net good thing at the very least, much more good if you're not overly concerned with your "rights" to make money and be rich. "Developing country" is just an excuse you use while you exploit them. Without them the modern western economy would crash.[/QUOTE] Socialism is not a net good. Why would it be?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52421454]Socialism is not a net good. Why would it be?[/QUOTE] Aspects of it certainly are though.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52421454]Socialism is not a net good. Why would it be?[/QUOTE] Just because you're a well-off employed westerner not dying of preventable diseases. You're not the target demographic, the poor worker is.

[QUOTE=RB33;52421587]Just because you're a well-off employed westerner not dying of preventable diseases. You're not the target demographic, the poor worker is.[/QUOTE] There's no reason to think anyone would be better off, including the poor worker, in a totally socialist state.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52421709]There's no reason to think anyone would be better off, including the poor worker, in a totally socialist state.[/QUOTE] There are all the reasons to suggest that. Free healthcare to all, free housing, basic income, workplace democracy and more. A worker will propser in socialism, not merely work for his survival.

[QUOTE=RB33;52421760]There are all the reasons to suggest that. Free healthcare to all, free housing, basic income, workplace democracy and more. A worker will propser in socialism, not merely work for his survival.[/QUOTE] That would be like me saying that capitalism provides easy wealth for all, a perfect meritocracy, etc. Just stating the idealistic outcomes is actually meaningless. In real life, those don't happen in a socialistic system because the entire economy comes crashing down and everyone gets poorer, with only the governmental controllers getting rediculously wealthy.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52421777]That would be like me saying that capitalism provides easy wealth for all, a perfect meritocracy, etc. Just stating the idealistic outcomes is actually meaningless. In real life, those don't happen in a socialistic system because the entire economy comes crashing down and everyone gets poorer, with only the governmental controllers getting rediculously wealthy.[/QUOTE] So you say pointing to similar-minded "socialist" systems, if one type of capitalism always tend to end up in failure. Would it be fair for me to point to it as the prime example of all forms of capitalism?

[QUOTE=RB33;52421823]So you say pointing to similar-minded "socialist" systems, if one type of capitalism always tend to end up in failure. Would it be fair for me to point to it as the prime example of all forms of capitalism?[/QUOTE] Majority capitalistic systems have led to better results everywhere it's been tried. I know of no country that became more capitalistic, but had worse results.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52421845]Majority capitalistic systems have led to better results everywhere it's been tried. I know of no country that became more capitalistic, but had worse results.[/QUOTE] Define better results. And to what cost is it worth it? Corruption, repression of rights, lack of healthcare?

[QUOTE=RB33;52421854]Define better results. And to what cost is it worth it? Corruption, repression of rights, lack of healthcare?[/QUOTE] Go ahead and give an example of a country that became more capitalistic and had worse overall results in your opinion. Also, remember that the free market/heavily regulated market split is not the same thing as the capitalism/socialism split. We're talking about a country that went from having publically controlled means of production going to having privately controlled means of production, and also getting worse overall results. [editline]1st July 2017[/editline] I can give plenty of examples of the opposite. China, for example, had massive overall benefits from allowing more private control. The same goes for Russia.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52421868]Go ahead and give an example of a country that became more capitalistic and had worse overall results in your opinion. Also, remember that the free market/heavily regulated market split is not the same thing as the capitalism/socialism split. We're talking about a country that went from having publically controlled means of production going to having privately controlled means of production, and also getting worse overall results. [editline]1st July 2017[/editline] I can give plenty of examples of the opposite. China, for example, had massive overall benefits from allowing more private control. The same goes for Russia.[/QUOTE] If you can't define it, I don't believe you. Things like "growth", more "industry", more *insert acronyms here*. It means shit, if everyone are poor, lack healthcare and most of the profits goes to foreign companies and corrupt politicans. Well, Russia, it went to complete shit after privatization. Some people are still worse of than in the Soviet days. It took a decade or two to recover. China is a totalitarian state, it allows no political opposition. Its not some great beacon of progress. Unless you like totalitarianism. A greater economy means nothing, unless you have freedom.

[QUOTE=RB33;52421920]If you can't define it, I don't believe you. Things like "growth", more "industry", more *insert acronyms here*. It means shit, if everyone are poor, lack healthcare and most of the profits goes to foreign companies and corrupt politicans. Well, Russia, it went to complete shit after privatization. Some people are still worse of than in the Soviet days. It took a decade or two to recover. China is a totalitarian state, it allows no political opposition. Its not some great beacon of progress. Unless you like totalitarianism. A greater economy means nothing, unless you have freedom.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about overall benefit. So the country, as a whole, was better off afterwards, taking everything into account. Russia was "complete shit" during the USSR. They killed 10s of millions through starvation.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52421709]There's no reason to think anyone would be better off, including the poor worker, in a totally socialist state.[/QUOTE] I think people are arguing for Scandinavian styled democratic socialism more than the USSR

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52422010]I think people are arguing for Scandinavian styled democratic socialism more than the USSR[/QUOTE] RB33 has been arguing for actual overall socialism. With that said, Scandinavians styled socialism isn't really socialism at all. It's more an example of one or two socialized industries, like healthcare, built on top of an entire economy of capitalism. Advocating for that would be an argument for a specific socialized industry, not socialism as a concept.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52421974]I'm talking about overall benefit. So the country, as a whole, was better off afterwards, taking everything into account. Russia was "complete shit" during the USSR. They killed 10s of millions through starvation.[/QUOTE] Yeah, and socialism can beat that result. No problem. The US was complete shit, they displaced millions of indians. That's not very relevant to the state of the US later in its history. Starvation in the USSR happened in the 30's and 40's. That's not relevant to the later stages of the USSR, and I say that despite not liking them very much. They did wrongs, that doesn't mean everything they did were complete shit. They went from a underdeveloped feudal nation to provide (sometimes lacking) healthcare to all and literacy increased from 20% to 90+%.

[QUOTE=RB33;52422055]Yeah, and socialism can beat that result. No problem. The US was complete shit, they displaced millions of indians. That's not very relevant to the state of the US later in its history. Starvation in the USSR happened in the 30's and 40's. That's not relevant to the later stages of the USSR, and I say that despite not liking them very much. They did wrongs, that doesn't mean everything they did were complete shit. They went from a underdeveloped feudal nation to provide (sometimes lacking) healthcare to all and literacy increased from 20% to 90+%.[/QUOTE] ... you're talking about a literacy increase from 28% in [B]1897[/B] to the mid 1900s. OF COURSE they increased literacy. They went from being an agrarian society of farmers to being an industrialized nation. You're also forgetting the part where they included governmental propaganda into education. So, sure, they increased literacy, but they also brainwashed generations of Russians. Also, there's that whole part about the USSR purging professors who disagreed with Leninist/Marxist ideology. [editline]1st July 2017[/editline] You can't compare their style with nothing. You have to compare it with the alternative, namely, the much better education system found in the Western world.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52422089]... you're talking about a literacy increase from 28% in [B]1897[/B] to the mid 1900s. OF COURSE they increased literacy. They went from being an agrarian society of farmers to being an industrialized nation. You're also forgetting the part where they included governmental propaganda into education. So, sure, they increased literacy, but they also brainwashed generations of Russians. Also, there's that whole part about the USSR purging professors who disagreed with Leninist/Marxist ideology. [editline]1st July 2017[/editline] You can't compare their style with nothing. You have to compare it with the alternative, namely, the much better education system found in the Western world.[/QUOTE] If the Bolsheviks never got into power and Russia went on a capitalist path. Why wouldn't it end up like any other third world country? Continuing poverty, starvation and exploitation by foreign companies. The capitalist alternative in industralization, healthcare and education might very well not have been better. They should have done things a lot better, going full capitalist doesn't necessary mean that they would have end up better in the same time period.

as long as humans are in charge of production and acquisition of resources, full socialism is a pipedream

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52422263]as long as humans are in charge of production and acquisition of resources, full socialism is a pipedream[/QUOTE] semi-human managers are in charge of the production and acquisition of resources now, so don't be too sure about that

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52422319]semi-human managers are in charge of the production and acquisition of resources now, so don't be too sure about that[/QUOTE] I always knew the the half-lizard people were in charge

[QUOTE=RB33;52422124]If the Bolsheviks never got into power and Russia went on a capitalist path. Why wouldn't it end up like any other third world country? Continuing poverty, starvation and exploitation by foreign companies.[/QUOTE] Because that isn't what happened to any other countries? Why would it have happened there?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52422815]Because that isn't what happened to any other countries? Why would it have happened there?[/QUOTE] It's happened all over Africa and parts of Asia.

[QUOTE=RB33;52418722]The capitalist doesn't have to work though, he's already well-off and can rely on his ownership and the workers to make him money. The workers have no other choice, they don't become capitalists or no longer rely on the system, just because they wish so.[/QUOTE] Could you give an example of a capitalist? Is Elon Musk a capitalist to you?

[QUOTE=RB33;52422894]It's happened all over Africa and parts of Asia.[/QUOTE] What? Those countries are authoritarian, tribal, etc. without good protected property rights, something that's necessary for capitalism to work.

[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52422965]Could you give an example of a capitalist? Is Elon Musk a capitalist to you?[/QUOTE] Anyone who no longer have to work in order to live, because his wealth-generating properties sustain his living. Most people must work as an employee in order to survive and will never have the chance to be an employer. Sure, there are exceptions. They are rare though, Musk may be one of them. [editline]2nd July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52422990]What? Those countries are authoritarian, tribal, etc. without good protected property rights, something that's necessary for capitalism to work.[/QUOTE] Before capitalism, there is feudalism. Are you seeing landed lords and castles in Africa, where serfs work for the king? If not, then capitalism. You can't claim otherwise, just because it isn't perfect.

[QUOTE=RB33;52423738]Before capitalism, there is feudalism.[/QUOTE] only in europe there have been plenty of countries which never had feudalism before capitalism

[QUOTE=RB33;52423738]Anyone who no longer have to work in order to live, because his wealth-generating properties sustain his living. Most people must work as an employee in order to survive and will never have the chance to be an employer. Sure, there are exceptions. They are rare though, Musk may be one of them.[/QUOTE] Elon could easily just sit back and exploit his workers. But he doesn't. Instead he invests into innovative technology. But according to your definition, he is a capitalist simply because he doesn't have to work in order to live. Do you know of any CEO or wealth owner who simply sits back and does not work anymore? The market is very competetive, so just sitting around not trying to innovate seems a death sentence for every company. Even Microsoft with its big marketshare in operating system doesn't just simply stop to improve Windows. For me all these people who now own the large companies tried big risks and succeeded - there are much more cases of people who tried the same but failed. But you don't hear about those.

[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52424089]Elon could easily just sit back and exploit his workers. But he doesn't. Instead he invests into innovative technology. But according to your definition, he is a capitalist simply because he doesn't have to work in order to live. Do you know of any CEO or wealth owner who simply sits back and does not work anymore? The market is very competetive, so just sitting around not trying to innovate seems a death sentence for every company. Even Microsoft with its big marketshare in operating system doesn't just simply stop to improve Windows. For me all these people who now own the large companies tried big risks and succeeded - there are much more cases of people who tried the same but failed. But you don't hear about those.[/QUOTE] Everyone who owns a company isn't sitting making decisions as its CEO. They let others do the work, while they watch the profits. The definition of a capitalist is someone who own a so called 'means of production', a property which makes you money and employes other people to do work for you.

[QUOTE=RB33;52423738]Before capitalism, there is feudalism. Are you seeing landed lords and castles in Africa, where serfs work for the king? If not, then capitalism. You can't claim otherwise, just because it isn't perfect.[/QUOTE] Did you read like a one paragraph synopsis of Marx and think you knew how the entire history of economic development worked?