• Socialism Has Never Worked?
    171 replies, posted
[QUOTE=RB33;50856717]Within reason, this is fine. The problem with Capitalism is overdoing it. I seldom take extreme positions and often take compromise positions instead.[/QUOTE]You started with extreme positions in this thread and they've just been whittled down to the compromises you're at now. I'm curious if you've noticed it at all though. You've long since stopped arguing for socialism itself, but for mixed systems that are capitalist with socialist elements.
[QUOTE=RB33;50856682]Would you be surprised if I say that I mostly agree with you? I do. You wouldn't be living as a king because you get food and housing for free, just not be poor anymore. There would be minimum income for food and other necessities. A worker not worrying about his life is a better worker.[/QUOTE] The difference is that I'm approaching it from a capitalistic system with no real restrictions outside of those that prevent abuse of individuals. The socialist 'wellfare' is a fix to the negative parts of capitalism. Coming at it from a socialist side is self destructive. Socialism is a patch for capitalism, not a replacement.
[QUOTE=RaptorJGW;50856703]This isn't injustice, unless the system isn't giving those homeless people the chance to work and earn money. If that isn't the case, it's not injustice. You might as well be homeless and starving and it's entirely your fault, and suffering isn't work or entitles you to anything as you claimed here[/QUOTE] Justice is subjective, your justice isn't my justice. I might view your justice as an injustice instead. [QUOTE]I mean this is so outright stupid. In your scenario your homeless person literally got a house and food for free. How is that fair to average people who actually work to get the same or even less? Him struggling isn't work or makes him deserve anything. Why don't average people just make themselves homeless on purpose to receive this generous welfare like the first hobo? And then you somehow still think you can pretend the billionaire had to do less than the homeless person to acquire what he has, although the hobo literally got a house and food [I]for free[/I]. Should the hobo now get a few billions from this random billionaire, because the hobo couldn't live like a princess from the very start of his life? Sure, inherited wealth exists too if it's that what you meant regarding the billionaire and injustice, but not every rich person inherited his wealth. And even then, their parents worked for that money and have the right to give it to their own children, so it isn't injustice yet again.[/QUOTE] They also got the same, everyone is getting housing for free. He's a human. We should take care of our fellow man, therefore he deserves it. No one should get billions, that's the point. I dislike the very core of our current society. I want to tear it down, rebuild it and keep only the good parts. Why be content with decent?
[QUOTE=RB33;50856766]No one should get billions, that's the point.[/QUOTE] Why not?
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50856647]Because its relative. One moral stance is that no one should be killed. Another moral stance is that some people should be killed so that others can live. One moral stance is that no one should be allowed to die. Another moral stance is that people should be allowed to die if they wish. Take assisted suicide. Is it morally right to let a person kill themself? Under what conditions? Is it morally right to allow a person who has been crippled to kill themself? Is it morally right to allow a person who is depressed to kill themself? Is it morally right to let someone who has cancer kill themself? Morals are entirely subjective. They're fast and loose rules that tend to gloss over the complexity of the issues at hand. But they're also loaded concepts because they relate to "Good" and "Bad". So if someone establishes themself as the "Moral" view in an argument, they can use the loaded nature of the term to simply ignore criticism and bludgeon their opponents. "I don't have to listen to you, you're immoral. By nature what you're saying is bad. Because it is immoral." [editline]9th August 2016[/editline] Keep in mind that religious, moral institutions have also argued for atrocities under moral cries. That heathens be put to death or enslaved because it was moral. That towns and crops be burned because it was moral, so long as the moral, the believers, were saved. That genocide is moral because it allows the moral to expand and grow.[/QUOTE] So? A state without morals cannot function. You can't divorce morality and the state as laws and economics and the people within the state want them and use them and need them.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50856732]You started with extreme positions in this thread and they've just been whittled down to the compromises you're at now. I'm curious if you've noticed it at all though. You've long since stopped arguing for socialism itself, but for mixed systems that are capitalist with socialist elements.[/QUOTE] Socialism is the worker's control over the means of production. I will never stop supporting that. It doesn't have to be without money. Stop confusing socialism and communism. [QUOTE=Zephyrs;50856745]The difference is that I'm approaching it from a capitalistic system with no real restrictions outside of those that prevent abuse of individuals. The socialist 'wellfare' is a fix to the negative parts of capitalism. Coming at it from a socialist side is self destructive. Socialism is a patch for capitalism, not a replacement.[/QUOTE] According to Marx, it's indeed a replacement. That will be followed by communism. Without going for pure fantasy utopia, socialism is a replacement. Better working capitalism is still flawed.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50856671]The underlying causes are fundamentally different, but the end results are very similar. It's just that it was a company profiting off of what amounted to indentured servitude instead of the 'state'. Hence the comment about irony. Quite right. The problem is that capitalism protects itself far better than socialism because a side effect of it's very nature is that it aggressively culls the weaker aspects of itself. Socialism does not do that as efficiently because the carrot on a stick isn't intrinsic to the system. It's simpler to regulate and deal with the negative consequences of capitalism. Therefore it's more effective.[/QUOTE] I would mostly agree with that. Though I don't think capitalism regulates itself at all, it's just that capitalism is a very malleable system which can work despite heavy restrictions. Personally I think an ideal system would be one which implements socialist and capitalist systems to feed each other, rather than trying to force one to dominate the other. If you have a regulated market which allows companies to replace people with machines then the consumer part of consumerism falls apart as no one can afford the products, so you implement a living wage and other socialist systems for health care and the like to ensure the population have enough money to live, and enough disposable income to feed back into the capitalist machine. The people who don't want to work or who can't work are supported by society, and they still contribute to the economy through spending while being supported by the taxes placed on corporations. The people who have the drive to work (most people) will earn money beyond their living wage and have disposable income for luxury goods, feeding the corporate machine and the social programs through spending and taxes. People can still work and get rich, but the poor aren't left behind. You may say "That sounds a lot like a highly idealised version of what we have now", and you'd be right. I personally believe that automation could be a bridging point for capitalism and socialism, if handled right, and allow the best qualities of both to shine through. Until we all inevitably die from the effects of mass industrialisation required to make such a system work, of course.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50856775]Why not?[/QUOTE] Because it's unfair, inequal. He's not worth anymore than the rest of us. We don't have a mansion or a sports car. Just live in a regular house and drive a regular car as the rest of us.
[QUOTE=RB33;50856788]Socialism is the worker's control over the means of production. I will never stop supporting that. It doesn't have to be without money. Stop confusing socialism and communism.[/QUOTE]I'm not, I know full well about these systems. [QUOTE]According to Marx, it's indeed a replacement. That will be followed by communism. Without going for pure fantasy utopia, socialism is a replacement. Better working capitalism is still flawed.[/QUOTE]We've actually ended up working the Marx progression backwards. From purely communal societies to more socialist ones and trade guilds to capitalist ones. Now we're more at a point of taking bits and fixing the last one. [editline]9th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RB33;50856806]Because it's unfair, inequal. He's not worth anymore than the rest of us. We don't have a mansion or a sports car. Just live in a regular house and drive a regular car as the rest of us.[/QUOTE]But you've already advocated for unfair, unequal systems. Ones where people who "improve" society get more than others.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50856833]I'm not, I know full well about these systems.[/QUOTE] And your opinion is that socialism must be without money? Then I disagree with you. Some forms perhaps but all of socialism is not moneyless. [QUOTE]We've actually ended up working the Marx progression backwards. From purely communal societies to more socialist ones and trade guilds to capitalist ones. Now we're more at a point of taking bits and fixing the last one.[/QUOTE] He was too optimistic in his prediction. But socialism should be the next step. Not because it was predicted, but it's what we deserve and should aim to achieve.
[QUOTE=RB33;50856766]Justice is subjective, your justice isn't my justice. I might view your justice as an injustice instead. They also got the same, everyone is getting housing for free. He's a human. We should take care of our fellow man, therefore he deserves it. No one should get billions, that's the point. I dislike the very core of our current society. I want to tear it down, rebuild it and keep only the good parts. Why be content with decent?[/QUOTE] I'm really tired and need to go to sleep. I could write walls of texts what's wrong regarding what you are proposing, which is called centrally planned economy, and why it never worked out and will never work out. The best chances we have to achieve a generally wealthy society is simply with regulated capitalism.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50856833]But you've already advocated for unfair, unequal systems. Ones where people who "improve" society get more than others.[/QUOTE] In comparison to Capitalism, it would still be an utopia. You can't dismiss a society just because it's not perfect.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50856775]Why not?[/QUOTE] No one is worth the billions they own. To reach such a point you need to do so on the backs of other, others who are paid a fraction of a pittance compared to the billions you have. At the same time a person with that much money can't spend it, and spending is a fundamental part of capitalism. If you have a few people with the majority of the money (as we have now) and they don't do anything with it then they are actively damaging the system which allowed them to reach such a point in the first place. Billionaires who don't utilise their money for a greater good* are a detriment to society and are leeches, both in a socialist sense and a capitalist sense, they neither contribute to the people nor the economy. That is why misers earn no respect but entrepreneurs and altruists** are given great respect. *Greater good in this context doesn't mean giving your money away or anything, just using the money rather than letting it stagnate would qualify as the greater good. Be it through investments or establishing new enterprises. **Altruism would also qualify as anything which combats stagnation in this context. Even if they ultimately stand to profit from their altruism, the important thing in a capitalist system is that money is exchanged and not so much to whom the money belongs in the end. Just to be clear I have no problems with any rich person so long as they contribute actively to the system. I may not be a big fan of capitalism but I'd rather I can at least respect capitalists who don't leech off the system and treat it like a game to get the high score. People like Elon Musk who use capitalism for good, for example.
[QUOTE=RaptorJGW;50856871]I'm really tired and need to go to sleep. I could write walls of texts what's wrong regarding what you are proposing, which is called centrally planned economy, and why it never worked out and will never work out. The best chances we have to achieve a generally wealthy society is simply with regulated capitalism.[/QUOTE] Well, it's better that we don't. So that you can get some sleep and I can get stuff done. Thanks for talking though.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50856776]So? A state without morals cannot function. You can't divorce morality and the state as laws and economics and the people within the state want them and use them and need them.[/QUOTE]Yet this is entirely irrelevant to the point at hand. Morality is only justification, not reason. People try to substitute morality for reason however, that something should or shouldn't be done only because it is "moral" and not because an actual reason backs it.
I kinda feel that the whole socialism-capitalism argument (if it could be called that) would die as soon as 90% of all jobs are automated, no one works as a result and everyone gets monthly income from the government paid for by taxes people that uh.. people spend using that government money that uhh... hmm
[QUOTE=RB33;50856788]According to Marx, it's indeed a replacement. That will be followed by communism. Without going for pure fantasy utopia, socialism is a replacement. Better working capitalism is still flawed.[/QUOTE] Marx is a damn joke. He never held office, never ran a company, let alone owned one, and never really had a job. He spent his entire life living off of a wealthy friend. Every post industrial application of his ideas has ended in objective failure. You may as well cite timecube as a guide on life philosophy. His ideas are demonstrably retarded.
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;50857004]I kinda feel that the whole socialism-capitalism argument (if it could be called that) would die as soon as 90% of all jobs are automated, no one works as a result and everyone gets monthly income from the government paid for by taxes people that uh.. people spend using that government money that uhh... hmm[/QUOTE] Taxes would have to be increased on companies to ensure a living wage for people. Also high end jobs like technicians, engineers, doctors, scientists, and many other knowledge based fields will still exist. The arts and philosophy would also still exist for people to study and attempt to make money with, though there can only be so much art that can be economically viable, not everyone who decides to pick up a guitar will become a rockstar. [editline]10th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zephyrs;50857017]Marx is a damn joke. He never held office, never ran a company, let alone owned one, and never really had a job. He spent his entire life living off of a wealthy friend. Every post industrial application of his ideas has ended in objective failure. You may as well cite timecube as a guide on life philosophy. His ideas are demonstrably retarded.[/QUOTE] Marx was a philosopher. Capitalism may be great for production, but for things which are not material it can act as a poison. Capitalism only cares about money (hence the name) and philosophy doesn't exactly pay the bills.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;50856905]No one is worth the billions they own. To reach such a point you need to do so on the backs of other, others who are paid a fraction of a pittance compared to the billions you have. At the same time a person with that much money can't spend it, and spending is a fundamental part of capitalism. If you have a few people with the majority of the money (as we have now) and they don't do anything with it then they are actively damaging the system which allowed them to reach such a point in the first place.[/QUOTE] Which once again misses the point that nobody else could do the things that they do. If they could, there would be more supply, and companies could get away with paying less. Getting others to do things efficiently because you have the capacity to envision and implement a grand design has intrinsic value. That is what is being rewarded. Most people do not have the ability and desire to do these things, and because there is a massive demand for the end result, be it products or services, there is enormous financial incentive for people who can do them. I don't really have a problem with the rest of what you are saying beyond pointing out that 'greater good' is a nebulous concept, and that inflation encourages active investment in the 'greater good' by devaluing wealth if you do not place it back into the system.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50857063]Which once again misses the point that nobody else could do the things that they do. If they could, there would be more supply, and companies could get away with paying less. Getting others to do things efficiently because you have the capacity to envision and implement a grand design has intrinsic value. That is what is being rewarded. Most people do not have the ability and desire to do these things, and because there is a massive demand for the end result, be it products or services, there is enormous financial incentive for people who can do them. I don't really have a problem with the rest of what you are saying beyond pointing out that 'greater good' is a nebulous concept, and that inflation encourages active investment in the 'greater good' by devaluing wealth if you do not place it back into the system.[/QUOTE] Greater good isn't a nebulous concept. I defined what I meant by that at the bottom of the post. Greater good in regard to capitalism is paying back into the system, keeping the system going through investments and spending. A billionaire who creates new companies to provide goods and services which are in demand is serving the greater good in this context, while one who leaves all their money in investment funds to do nothing but grow does not.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;50857089]Greater good isn't a nebulous concept. I defined what I meant by that at the bottom of the post. Greater good in regard to capitalism is paying back into the system, keeping the system going through investments and spending. A billionaire who creates new companies to provide goods and services which are in demand is serving the greater good in this context, while one who leaves all their money in investment funds to do nothing but grow does not.[/QUOTE] .... And those investment funds aren't filled with companies offering goods and services? [QUOTE=Janus Vesta;50857048]Marx was a philosopher.[/QUOTE] An objectively fucking terrible one who is indirectly responsible for the subjugation and impoverishment of hundreds of millions of people, let alone the tens of millions that have died because of austerity. Have we forgotten the horrors of the soviet union already? [QUOTE=Janus Vesta;50857048]Capitalism may be great for production, but for things which are not material it can act as a poison. Capitalism only cares about money (hence the name) and philosophy doesn't exactly pay the bills.[/QUOTE] Economics is effectively the study of money, and is based off of data. There is a lot that isn't well understood because of the complexity, but the general broad strokes of economic theory are well established, very simple, and intrinsically follow capitalistic principles regardless of context. Philosophy uses logic, but doesn't inherently rely on data. This allows for ridiculously wild speculation that has no correlation to reality. Marx is one of the best examples of the utter insanity that can be passed off as rational if you make assumptions about a premise with no grounding in the real world.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50857154] An objectively fucking terrible one who is indirectly responsible for the subjugation and impoverishment of hundreds of millions of people, let alone the tens of millions that have died because of austerity. Have we forgotten the horrors of the soviet union already? [/QUOTE] Ah yes, Karl Marx is responsible for the actions of a man who wouldn't hold power until 39 years after Marx died. Of course. Stalin wasn't a horrible person who sought to exterminate his opposition and raise himself above the common man, it was actually all down to that retard Marx and his stupid ideas of the workers having some semblance of control over their lot in life. If only Marx had quit being a leech and instead got a job as an investment banker, all the ills of the 20th century could have been avoided if Moron Marx used his brain. He was only an economist for a large portion of his life, what did he know about the economy? He never owned a business!
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50857154]An objectively fucking terrible one who is indirectly responsible for the subjugation and impoverishment of hundreds of millions of people, let alone the tens of millions that have died because of austerity. Have we forgotten the horrors of the soviet union already?[/QUOTE] i wouldn't say he was objectively fucking terrible the soviet union and its experiences are more down to russian intellectuals more than german ones.
"Billionaires" generally don't have billions of dollars. Except for the rare occasion where they liquidate large amounts of their assets for cash. Otherwise, all that wealth is locked up in assets. Unless you're a drug lord, investment banker, corrupt politician, or your uncle was a Nigerian prince and you inherited it all. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Sergey Brin, Warren Buffet, etc, etc, didn't become billionaires because they horded billions in cash from business transactions. They're Billionaires because they own a very large percent of something they started which accumulated value. You become a billionaire by making something, building it up, and selling it later. You can say it's sad and unfair that these people are mega rich and you aren't despite breaking your back turning wrenches working for their companies but unless specifically stated in your employment contract you don't own part of that wealth. We have ways to get involved and own part of the wealth, it's called the stock market. Where you buy and sell shares of ownership in public corporations. You're playing the same game as the big cats but at a much, much, smaller scale. [editline]9th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Janus Vesta;50857089]A billionaire who creates new companies to provide goods and services which are in demand is serving the greater good in this context, while one who leaves all their money in investment funds to do nothing but grow does not.[/QUOTE] The very definition of investment means that money is being put to use for something (Which may or may not include the greater good). That money isn't just sitting somewhere, being magically made bigger by some place called an investment bank. You're getting a return because that money is doing something. "billionaires who creates new companies" got their starting capital from somewhere. That somewhere could be a venture capitalist, or through investors. Very rarely are billion dollar corporations started from nothing. [editline]9th August 2016[/editline] Some corporations are owned by the employees, but that takes a lot of the power out of the hands of the person(s) who created it.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;50857411]tbh the argument for me has never been about the merits of pure socialism but more how practical it is. Pure socialism is an inherently perfect system with one innate and massive flaw: requiring equal perfection from the humans involved. If you're crunching numbers, yes, it's literally perfect, but an economy isn't crunching numbers. Human beings aren't I/O machines. Pure Socialism can never work because humans just aren't capable of sustaining it and never will be. It's a fine system, it's just not a fine system for humans.[/QUOTE] I will disagree, there is only the lack of will to do it. If people got convinced and actually tried to adhere to it and not cheat it at the first possible moment. It could work and if it continued to for enough time, people would start sticking to it. As people are used to Capitalism, they would get used to Socialism. But as long as people tell themselves it's impossible, it's certainly not going to work.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;50857411]tbh the argument for me has never been about the merits of pure socialism but more how practical it is. Pure socialism is an inherently perfect system with one innate and massive flaw: requiring equal perfection from the humans involved. If you're crunching numbers, yes, it's literally perfect, but an economy isn't crunching numbers. Human beings aren't I/O machines. Pure Socialism can never work because humans just aren't capable of sustaining it and never will be. It's a fine system, it's just not a fine system for humans.[/QUOTE] I disagree. Capitalism is a perfect system on paper too, but it's a heavily flawed system in reality. I believe the main reason capitalism is more successful than socialism is that people like to feel special. Capitalism is an unequal system, and that means some of the people are going to be special, so more people will gravitate to capitalism because there is a chance that they too can become special. It may not be at all common but the people who fail to become special can feel a sense of pride in knowing or supporting those who do become special. Socialism on the other hand aims to make people equal, which reduces the ability for people to stand out and become special. Basically, people would rather have bad conditions with the chance to obtain great conditions, than to ensure everyone has okay conditions. Do you want a queen sized bed or a single? Would you sleep on a futon for a year to get a queen sized bed?
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;50857496]I disagree. Capitalism is a perfect system on paper too, but it's a heavily flawed system in reality. I believe the main reason capitalism is more successful than socialism is that people like to feel special. Capitalism is an unequal system, and that means some of the people are going to be special, so more people will gravitate to capitalism because there is a chance that they too can become special. It may not be at all common but the people who fail to become special can feel a sense of pride in knowing or supporting those who do become special. Socialism on the other hand aims to make people equal, which reduces the ability for people to stand out and become special. Basically, people would rather have bad conditions with the chance to obtain great conditions, than to ensure everyone has okay conditions. Do you want a queen sized bed or a single? Would you sleep on a futon for a year to get a queen sized bed?[/QUOTE] capitalism isn't successful because people like to feel special it developed out of advanced agrarian economies in response to the advent of growing agricultural surpluses and the rise of markets and a medium of exchange that made trading much easier it was successful because it was a logical development of existing practices dating back into the middle ages. i mean ancient greek civilization had capitalism too [quote]Would you sleep on a futon for a year to get a queen sized bed?[/quote] yeah, a lot of people do that sort of thing. it's called low-time preference and its the reason why western civilization became globally encompassing and powerful. it wasn't guns or capitalism or germs or wheat or christianity - it was just the basic concept of deferring reward to the future
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50857154].... And those investment funds aren't filled with companies offering goods and services? An objectively fucking terrible one who is indirectly responsible for the subjugation and impoverishment of hundreds of millions of people, let alone the tens of millions that have died because of austerity. Have we forgotten the horrors of the soviet union already? Economics is effectively the study of money, and is based off of data. There is a lot that isn't well understood because of the complexity, but the general broad strokes of economic theory are well established, very simple, and intrinsically follow capitalistic principles regardless of context. Philosophy uses logic, but doesn't inherently rely on data. This allows for ridiculously wild speculation that has no correlation to reality. Marx is one of the best examples of the utter insanity that can be passed off as rational if you make assumptions about a premise with no grounding in the real world.[/QUOTE] i too remember the famous line from the communist manifesto "so basically, lets just kill everyone guys. lol"
[QUOTE=EdvardSchnitz;50858006]i too remember the famous line from the communist manifesto "so basically, lets just kill everyone guys. lol"[/QUOTE] I like how Marx gave detailed instructions on how to ruin Russia and tips for how for Stalin to take power. Yeah, the part after the chains part.
[QUOTE=_Axel;50855894]There's a pretty big difference between being exploited and getting a pittance in return and making a living. The issue lies in employers taking advantage of the demand for jobs to get as much as possible out of their employees, who have no choice but to comply if they want to have enough money to live. This is not about people wanting to sleep all day and play videogames instead of contributing to society, this is about people being taken advantage of and it kinda disgusts me that you'd make that comparison.[/QUOTE] But that's not really an issue communism solves (de facto, everyone has to work [I]and[/I] is poor, sometimes to the point of lack/heavily reduced amounts of food), or one that capitalism inherently has. Otherwise most of the developed countries on earth would have that problem, and that is not the case. Bottom line is that capitalism can incorporate some social policies, which essentially is what makes it vastly superior over socialism, or worse, communism - which ability to incorporate policies from other forms of government has time and time again been proven not to, well, exist.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.