[QUOTE=RaptorJGW;50856015]It isn't incapable of doing that, it outright rejects doing that which isn't bad. Nobody is entitled to the things you said, just because it's necessary to survive. Everyone has to work for it. What you're saying sounds like enabling laziness sugar coated in naive altruism honestly.[/QUOTE]
We all deserve it as humans. It's our human rights and our duty as a race to take care of our fellow people. Capitalism destroys that by valuing greed and self-interest.
[editline]9th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=ntzu;50856031]Capitalism is all about efficiently allocating resources to those who derive the most value from those resources.
If your business is making losses, it means that you're taking valued (and limited) resources and devaluing them, as others do not want what you are creating. When this business eventually fails, its what economists call 'creative destruction'.
The business fails yes, people go without jobs yes, but this frees up those resources (both physical and human) to be utilized by those who can more efficiently derive value from said resources. If Steve Jobs or Bill Gates didn't care for themselves, we wouldn't have Microsoft or Apple, and the operating system + browser you're using would not exist.
This is entirely necessary, and the beauty of capitalism is that blindly caring for yourself means you must care about the needs of others as well.[/QUOTE]
Value = Money, right? Value should be the usefulness to society and be used in the interests of all. I can never really like the society we have now, it's just doing everything wrong.
[QUOTE=EdvardSchnitz;50855687]Let's take one socialist republic here: Revolutionary Catalonia. Living standards improved, production improved, education improved, and all of these things improved under the system of Anarcho-Syndaclism. I'd argue quality of life here was better than say something like yugoslavia or hungary. [/quote]
to be honest the information is conflicting and there's a lot of indications that they were independently redeveloping a form of capitalism in response to problems they encountered in the new economy
[quote]Also, I would like it if you went into more detail about what socialist thought you mean when you say "socialist thought" since many socialist beliefs exist. And I also want full statistics and this 'math' that proves that it is unusable with a larger society.[/QUOTE]
to put it short: imagine a computer trying to simulate itself
to put it longer: you basically have to have the entirety of society figure out what needs to be produced and where it must be allocated.
the market is basically a giant decentralised computer which does this at an extremely low expenditure cost while providing accurate results
a socialised method of production and distribution requires the system to have perfect information at all times which is difficult at best and leads to supply distortions as time goes on. the more complex an economy becomes the worse it is to handle as you devote an increasing share of resources and time on trying to efficiently allocate resources using a system more suited to hunter-gatherer bands than a civilisation of billions
[QUOTE=RB33;50856044]We all deserve it as humans. It's our human rights and our duty as a race to take care of our fellow people. Capitalism destroys that by valuing greed and self-interest.[/QUOTE]
You do realize nothing is ever really for free right? You disregard completely the hard work of people who had to pay for who ever received something for free. There is no justice in that.
[QUOTE=RB33;50856044]Value should be the usefulness to society and be used in the interests of all.[/QUOTE]
Capitalism naturally establishes your usefulness to society. By assigning a price "usefulness" stops being vague term and you have something you can actually work with.
[QUOTE=RB33;50856044]Value = Money, right? Value should be the usefulness to society and be used in the interests of all. I can never really like the society we have now, it's just doing everything wrong.[/QUOTE]If the only important thing was usefulness to society, we'd have a lot less than we do now, and basically we'd just be a perpetual breeding machine of sleep, eat, fuck, sleep, eat, fuck. For my book, that's far more wrong than our society is currently. Money is just a general valuable that can be traded easily. Value is different, its about desire for something, about what it means to an individual.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50855950]Following your self interest [I]is human nature[/I].
Survival has been the #1 instinct of all animal species that have.. uhh, survived?
Humans are no exception- civilization has made it more complicated but it still is what it was, people are now working together to survive, against other people mostly.
Socialism's ideals are not fit for us as it is expected to act in unison and not strive for more for the greater good, which is against human nature; acquiring more resources ensures your survival, so is natural.
Altruism makes this selfishness harder to detect, and sometimes forms dilemmas, which is also a trait that used to be beneficial for survival, but of the species.
I am not advocating for these instincts and traits. They are obsolete. While we are a very advanced species where an individual can have a really unique character, a set of traits, but thinking that we have phased out of our roots is being dishonest.
Capitalist society's work obligations are natural.[/QUOTE]
uh you do realise that evolution can select for altruistic behaviours (and it has done) often right?
survival isn't important unless the gene propagates itself and becomes more common in the population. after the gene has a chance to spread the survival of the carrier aspect doesn't matter so much
[QUOTE=ntzu;50856031]Capitalism is all about efficiently allocating resources to those who derive the most value from those resources.
If your business is making losses, it means that you're taking valued (and limited) resources and devaluing them, as others do not want what you are creating. When this business eventually fails, its what economists call 'creative destruction'.
The business fails yes, people go without jobs yes, but this frees up those resources (both physical and human) to be utilized by those who can more efficiently derive value from said resources. If Steve Jobs or Bill Gates didn't care for themselves, we wouldn't have Microsoft or Apple, and the operating system + browser you're using would not exist.
This is entirely necessary, and the beauty of capitalism is that blindly caring for yourself means you must care about the needs of others as well.[/QUOTE]
The best part is that you really only need minimal interaction with the system to prevent abuse. Add a few labor laws to ensure safety, and slap massive fines/penalties on things found to be in breech, and suddenly, it's quantifiably cheaper to not be a total shithead. I don't like totally 'free market' stuff because of the abusive/anti competitive behavior that occurs when dealing with a total lack of regulation, but in general, the fewer arcane rules you have to follow, the more nimble and responsive the economy becomes. A responsive economy is the cookbook definition of a breeding ground for rapid technological advancement, which is generally accepted as a good thing.
You just want to put a lid on abuse, and let things evolve on their own. Heavy control, such as that seen in socialism, can be compared to aggressive dog breeding for 'show' qualities. You end up with disgusting mutilated shit like this.
[img]http://www.louisdonald.com/uploads/2/7/3/7/27379747/4380110_orig.png[/img]
That's an animal that can't even run, let alone work, all in the name of selecting 'desirable' traits. Just like how socialism artificially props up failing and diseased industries, a dog breeder will create animals that would never exist without a crutch. There is no market for a dog like this outside of shows.
[QUOTE=RB33;50856044]
Value = Money, right? Value should be the usefulness to society and be used in the interests of all. I can never really like the society we have now, it's just doing everything wrong.[/QUOTE]
You have it the wrong way around, Money is merely a measurement of value, an index of your purchasing power. Value literally already is 'usefulness to society'.
Value is a nebulous thing, but generally value is gain; it's improvement, gain, benefit. When I improve a home, I improve its value to myself and others. When you and I trade something and both love what we got, value was created as we both got something better from something we wanted less.
[QUOTE=RaptorJGW;50856097]You do realize nothing is ever really for free right? You disregard completely the hard work of people who had to pay for who ever received something for free. There is no justice in that.[/QUOTE]
There is no justice in starving and being homeless. They deserve getting it for free.
[QUOTE]Capitalism naturally establishes your usefulness to society.[/QUOTE]
So does socialism. But this wasn't about people. It's about value.
[QUOTE=RB33;50856127]There is no justice in starving and being homeless. They deserve getting it for free.
So does socialism. But this wasn't about people. It's about value.[/QUOTE]
it's possible to support free-market economics while providing basic necessities for people who are homeless or starving.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50856104]If the only important thing was usefulness to society, we'd have a lot less than we do now, and basically we'd just be a perpetual breeding machine of sleep, eat, fuck, sleep, eat, fuck. For my book, that's far more wrong than our society is currently. Money is just a general valuable that can be traded easily. Value is different, its about desire for something, about what it means to an individual.[/QUOTE]
Luxaries will still exist, just not wasted to capitalist-levels. Usefulness would be prioritized as it should be.
[editline]9th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50856137]it's possible to support free-market economics while providing basic necessities for people who are homeless or starving.[/QUOTE]
Sure, but for me it's also about injustice. Sure, now i'm not starving anymore and got a house. And the other guy still got billions in the bank. He sure didn't struggle nearly as much as me to get that.
[QUOTE=RB33;50856127]So does socialism.[/QUOTE]
No it doesn't.
It artificially sets values by propping up industries without regard to technological advancement, or other realities, which is why the economies go to shit.
[QUOTE=RB33;50856139]Luxaries will still exist, just not wasted to capitalist-levels. Usefulness would prioritized as it should be.[/QUOTE]How should usefulness be prioritized? What defines usefulness? Where do luxuries fit in to usefulness when luxuries by their nature are inessential.
[QUOTE=RB33;50856139]Luxaries will still exist, just not wasted to capitalist-levels. Usefulness would prioritized as it should be.[/quote]
how do you determine who gets luxuries or not
[quote]Sure, but for me it's also about injustice. Sure, now i'm not starving anymore and got a house. And the other guy still got billions in the bank. He sure didn't struggle nearly as much as me to get that.[/QUOTE]
you know you can enact policies that redistribute a bit of the wealth and hold people in society generally accountable and discourage complete selfishness
[QUOTE=ntzu;50856119]You have it the wrong way around, Money is merely a measurement of value, an index of your purchasing power. Value literally already is 'usefulness to society'.
Value is a nebulous thing, but generally value is gain; it's improvement, gain, benefit. When I improve a home, I improve its value to myself and others. When you and I trade something and both love what we got, value was created as we both got something better from something we wanted less.[/QUOTE]
A diamond, a sports car, a mansion are indications of usefulness? Because they got value. This is not rewarding usefulness to society, it's taking value away from what matters.
[QUOTE=RB33;50856127]There is no justice in starving and being homeless.[/QUOTE]
What you are saying has literally nothing to do with justice in the first place.
[QUOTE=RB33;50856139]Sure, but for me it's also about injustice. Sure, now i'm not starving anymore and got a house. And the other guy still got billions in the bank. He sure didn't struggle nearly as much as me to get that.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RB33;50856139]He sure didn't struggle nearly as much as me to get that.[/QUOTE]
I refuse to believe that you aren't a troll, lmao
[QUOTE=RB33;50856182]A diamond, a sports car, a mansion are indications of usefulness? Because they got value. This is not rewarding usefulness to society, it's taking value away from what matters.[/QUOTE]
so what matters to you exactly?
the reason diamonds, sports cars, and mansions are valuable is because lots of people want them, creating scarcity and hence their inflated value
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50856157]No it doesn't.
It artificially sets values by propping up industries without regard to technological advancement, or other realities, which is why the economies go to shit.[/QUOTE]
Depends on what your aim as a society is, everybody working or sacrificing that for possible advancement. I'm not judging that all socialist societies to be the same.
[QUOTE=RB33;50856182]A diamond, a sports car, a mansion are indications of usefulness? Because they got value. This is not rewarding usefulness to society, it's taking value away from what matters.[/QUOTE]
Diamonds are extremely useful, the rest are what's called 'luxury goods', and there is no reason they shouldn't exist. If there is demand, there will be supply. Just because the end product doesn't seem valuable to you doesn't mean it isn't valuable to someone else.
You know video games? Those are also luxury goods. Are you saying that video games, a multi-billion dollar industry that has employed millions, takes value away from society? Should we ban all entertainment forever?
[QUOTE=RaptorJGW;50856015]Only that we don't live in the wild anymore. That's the only reason we became social animals. Because we weren't strong enough predators to survive alone.[/QUOTE]
I was responding to a post which claimed that any economic and social system must be structured around pure self-interest because it is embedded in human nature. You are arguing that altruism and cooperation are part of human nature to begin with, so I guess you agree with me?
[QUOTE]In this system we have created for ourselves (going to school, find a job, make money, buy the things you need), individuals don't need a group to survive.[/QUOTE]
What.
You realize the system relies on humans being part of a group right? You need people to pick up your trash, to supply you with water and electricity, to grow food for you to eat, to educate your children... In the era of globalization, humanity is more interdependent than it ever has been. If individuals didn't need other people to survive, people would be able to easily live by themselves in the wild without any interaction with other humans, which clearly isn't the case.
[QUOTE]And if you look at human history, the only reason we advanced so much is literally because of competition.[/QUOTE]
But the competition doesn't occur between isolated individuals at all? The companies engaging in competition rely on cooperation within their ranks to function. People work in teams, communicate with each other, information is shared between several departments. We are very far from lone warriors fighting each other in pits.
The truth is, if you want progress, you need a healthy dose of both competition and cooperation.
[QUOTE]The answer is: Regulate capitalism. Not replace it with this overly idealistic system that hasn't worked so far.[/QUOTE]
And how do you propose we regulate it to fix this glaring issue? Providing a basic universal wage to cover minimum food and housing for everyone would be a good way of forcing employers to give better reasons to work for them than "or you'll starve", but you seem to be against that for some weird reason?
[QUOTE=RB33;50856139]Sure, but for me it's also about injustice. Sure, now i'm not starving anymore and got a house. And the other guy still got billions in the bank. He sure didn't struggle nearly as much as me to get that.[/QUOTE]
OK. Serious question here. Why does effort matter?
You seem to believe that hard work should be rewarded. OK. That's not entirely unreasonable, but it completely misses how much impact some things have on society, and assumes that everyone is not only capable, but willing, to work in nearly every facet of society. People are [i]not[/i] fundamentally equal. Their rights are equivalent, but they themselves are not. Some are smart. Some are stupid. Some excel at specific types of work. Some are more general purpose. Some are disciplined. Others are not. Capitalism rewards people for doing something that is 'more valuable' by giving them more. Sorry, but digging ditches, however necessary isn't as high impact as an executive manager making choices that affect millions of people and involve billions in dollars.
Sorry to tell you this, but if they weren't born into wealth, they are probably more useful to society than you are. People become millionaires all the time. Most get there by being patient, and providing something that other people want at a price they are willing to pay. You don't need to be a multi-billionaire to live a life of relative opulence. Telling those people that they can't be rewarded removes any incentive for them to actually give a fuck. They will move where they can be rewarded, or get stuck watching their country go down the toilet as it falls further and further behind the aggressively capitalistic nations.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50856163]How should usefulness be prioritized? What defines usefulness? Where do luxuries fit in to usefulness when luxuries by their nature are inessential.[/QUOTE]
Instead of throwing away food, instead try to feed those who don't have any instead. Throwing away surplus food is a luxary. Luxaries would be rewards for those who serve society for the improvement of all.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50856171]how do you determine who gets luxuries or not[/QUOTE]
See answer above.
[QUOTE]you know you can enact policies that redistribute a bit of the wealth and hold people in society generally accountable and discourage complete selfishness[/QUOTE]
Yes you can, personally, I still wouldn't be happy.
[QUOTE=RaptorJGW;50856192]What you are saying has literally nothing to do with justice in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Starvation and homeless is an injustice, therefore the opposite is justice. Just as simply as that.
[QUOTE]I refuse to believe that you aren't a troll, lmao[/QUOTE]
Great discussion, I hope the same for some on the opposite side. But unfortunately they are serious, that's a bit depressing.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50856200]so what matters to you exactly?
the reason diamonds, sports cars, and mansions are valuable is because lots of people want them, creating scarcity and hence their inflated value[/QUOTE]
Yes, people want them but they are not useful. Those things won't feed your hunger or give you housing except the mansion but that's overdoing it. They are things for fun, not usefulness.
[editline]9th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50856222]Society determines what has value or not, not you.
Value isnt just about usefulness or practicality. Sometimes it has artistic value, sometimes inflated value through culture and market tricks (which needs to have its ass regulated, and it mostly gets that), and sometimes it is just a meme.
But the culprit is the society itself, not sure against whom socialism would protect them.[/QUOTE]
Capitalism is the cause of it though, socialism wouldn't make us feel the need for more useless things.
[QUOTE=ntzu;50855910]I'm probably going to get lynched for this, but uh... remember the explanation I did on price ceilings? Well there's also a thing called a price floor, the minimum wage is one such price floor.
[t]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NElepK_UTvo/UIPKd5-cDDI/AAAAAAAAAAs/9P2OwOUfkqw/s1600/figur3.gif[/t]
When prices are established above market equilibrium, an excess supply is created (as in, excess labor). The rest should be clear.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I know more or less how unemployment works. But what's your point exactly? And how does it relate to my post?
[QUOTE=ntzu;50856253]You know video games? Those are also luxury goods. Are you saying that video games, a multi-billion dollar industry that has employed millions, takes value away from society? Should we ban all entertainment forever?[/QUOTE]
Is that what you imagine socialism to be, a place without any fun at all? There would still be the need for fun, I personally would advocate for video games even in socialism. What else would we do after work?
[QUOTE=RB33;50856272]Instead of throwing away food, instead try to feed those who don't have any instead. Throwing away surplus food is a luxary. Luxaries would be rewards for those who serve society for the improvement of all.[/QUOTE]Again, what determines these things? How is it determined who has improved society as a whole? How does this keep people from being elevated above others?
[editline]9th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=RB33;50856312]Is that what you imagine socialism to be, a place without any fun at all? There would still be the need for fun, I personally would advocate for video games even in socialism. What else would we do after work?[/QUOTE]Keep working to hope you eventually qualify as having improved society as a whole. Who makes the video games? If they're a luxury then they are not useful by your own statements. So the people making the video games wouldn't even have access to them, and ultimately this puts them at a lower standing than the "useful" jobs. They don't get luxuries like others, even if they were responsible for their creation.
[editline]9th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=RB33;50856312]Is that what you imagine socialism to be, a place without any fun at all? There would still be the need for fun, I personally would advocate for video games even in socialism. What else would we do after work?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RB33;50856272]Yes, people want them but they are not useful. Those things won't feed your hunger or give you housing except the mansion but that's overdoing it. They are things for fun, not usefulness.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RB33;50856312]Is that what you imagine socialism to be, a place without any fun at all? There would still be the need for fun, I personally would advocate for video games even in socialism. What else would we do after work?[/QUOTE]
hahahaah
the fact you have to advocate for videogames in the first place
do you need any justification other than that people are just willing to buy them
[QUOTE=RB33;50856272]Instead of throwing away food, instead try to feed those who don't have any instead. Throwing away surplus food is a luxary. Luxaries would be rewards for those who serve society for the improvement of all.
[B]The work it would take to move the food you don't want to those who absolutely need it vastly outweighs the overall benefit that is gained from feeding those people. I'm sorry to be the devil's advocate here but the very notion of 'the greater good' actually supports me here. The work required to feed those who genuinely need it would be so huge and taxing that it would simultaneously detract from the standard of living of all others, including yourself. What benefit would we gain other than unemployed, unskilled, uneducated, but fed people?[/B]
Yes you can, personally, I still wouldn't be happy.
[B]Would you rather strap on some VR equipment and live in Star trek for the rest of your life? We do not have the technology nor resources to uplift the entire planet's population to the quality of life you and I enjoy today.[/B]
Starvation and homeless is an injustice, therefore the opposite is justice. Just as simply as that.
[B]
Reality has no notion of justice. This isn't even an argument, its the equivalent of spouting political memes to get your favorite president elected.[/B]
Great discussion, I hope the same for some on the opposite side. But unfortunately they are serious, that's a bit depressing.
[B]I've given you great explanations but you ignored them, probably because you're so ignorant to how the world actually works that you simply couldn't believe it, either that or you're trolling lol[/B]
Yes, people want them but they are not useful. Those things won't feed your hunger or give you housing except the mansion but that's overdoing it. They are things for fun, not usefulness.
[B]What if I believe that your access to the internet is 'overdoing it', which was akin to a luxury not even 20 years ago, and was brought to you explicitly because of capitalism. Tell me, how do you determine 'overdoing it'[/B][/QUOTE]
Replied in quote in bold.
[QUOTE=_Axel;50856310]Yes, I know more or less how unemployment works. But what's your point exactly? And how does it relate to my post?[/QUOTE]
This is yet another inherently socialist policy (just like rent control), and its creating the very issues you say capitalism supposedly has.
In fact, a lot of issues people seem to have with capitalism isn't with capitalism at all, it's with the government intervention of capitalism creating shitty situations and distorting markets.
The 'exploitation' of the excess supply of workers is in no small part thanks to the minimum wage, are you saying this is the fault of capitalism? Government intervention for the 'greater good'?
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50856263]OK. Serious question here. Why does effort matter?
You seem to believe that hard work should be rewarded. OK. That's not entirely unreasonable, but it completely misses how much impact some things have on society, and assumes that everyone is not only capable, but willing, to work in nearly every facet of society. People are [i]not[/i] fundamentally equal. Their rights are equivalent, but they themselves are not. Some are smart. Some are stupid. Some excel at specific types of work. Some are more general purpose. Some are disciplined. Others are not. Capitalism rewards people for doing something that is 'more valuable' by giving them more. Sorry, but digging ditches, however necessary isn't as high impact as an executive manager making choices that affect millions of people and involve billions in dollars.
Sorry to tell you this, but if they weren't born into wealth, they are probably more useful to society than you are. People become millionaires all the time. Most get there by being patient, and providing something that other people want at a price they are willing to pay. You don't need to be a multi-billionaire to live a life of relative opulence. Telling those people that they can't be rewarded removes any incentive for them to actually give a fuck. They will move where they can be rewarded, or get stuck watching their country go down the toilet as it falls further and further behind the aggressively capitalistic nations.[/QUOTE]
I still don't why someone should have salaries equal to thousands of workers, that's disgusting. Why should anyone get that? Are you worthy as much as them? Are you better than a thousand people combined? If not, get a pay decrease. People will be rewarded but they be rewarded in a way that makes sense. Not in a way that is just greed and "give me more money". Once people get ridiculous amount of money, they are never content. People are starving but no, they being rich are still not happy about their pay. I can't feel any sympathy for them.
[editline]10th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50856339]hahahaah
the fact you have to advocate for videogames in the first place
do you need any justification other than that people are just willing to buy them[/QUOTE]
They are people who are anti-fun socialists as well. All work, no fun. Also conservatives who despises games. You never know.
At a certain point, you're going to have to acknowledge that your own viewpoint is futile and illogical. It doesn't even work within itself. You're arguing for something while at the same time arguing against it. Everyone is treated equally. People who "improve society" get special treatment. Luxuries shouldn't exist because they're not necessary for survival. Luxuries should be given to those who "improve society". Society wouldn't be unfun. Luxuries are bad because they are just for fun.
[editline]9th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=RB33;50856352]I can't feel any sympathy for them.[/QUOTE]If true, you'd be a sociopath, not a socialist.
Socialism: I breathe, therefor I deserve
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50856316]Again, what determines these things? How is it determined who has improved society as a whole? How does this keep people from being elevated above others?[/QUOTE]
Once change doesn't make society perfect. It's just one of many that would be made. If the majority of the people decide that a sports car and mansions they can't afford with is not a priority for them. Then they likely won't get built.
[QUOTE]Keep working to hope you eventually qualify as having improved society as a whole. Who makes the video games? If they're a luxury then they are not useful by your own statements. So the people making the video games wouldn't even have access to them, and ultimately this puts them at a lower standing than the "useful" jobs. They don't get luxuries like others, even if they were responsible for their creation.[/QUOTE]
Game devs, who else? Forced labour? Game devs, of course. More useful things would exist, less luxaries but they would still exist. They would probably get a free copy of their own game. Also they could most likely also just buy them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.